Raul Daza vs Luis Singson

Facts:
After the congressional elections of May 11, 1987, the House of
Representatives proportionally apportioned its twelve seats in the
Commission on Appointments among the several political parties
represented in that chamber
On September 16, 1988, the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino was
reorganized, resulting in a political realignment in the House of
Representatives. Twenty four members of the Liberal Party formally
resigned from that... party and joined the LDP, thereby swelling its number
to 159 and correspondingly reducing their former party to only 17 members.
On the basis of this development, the House of Representatives revised its
representation in the Commission on Appointments by withdrawing the seat
occupied by the petitioner and giving this to the newly-formed LDP. On
December 5, 1988, the chamber elected... a new set of representatives
consisting of the original members except the petitioner and including
therein respondent Luis C. Singson as the additional member from the
LDP.
The petitioner came to this Court on January 13, 1989, to challenge his
removal from the Commission on Appointments and the assumption of his
seat by the respondent. Acting initially on his petition for prohibition and
injunction with preliminary... injunction, we issued a temporary restraining
order that same day to prevent both the petitioner and the respondent from
serving in the Commission on Appointments.
the contention of the petitioner is that he cannot be removed from the
Commission on Appointments because his election thereto is permanent
under the doctrine announced in Cunanan v. Tan.[5] His... claim is that the
reorganization of the House representation in the said body is not based on
a permanent political realignment because the LDP is not a duly registered
political party and has not yet attained political stability.
Issues:
For his part, the respondent argues that the question raised by the
petitioner is political in nature and so beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.
Ruling:
Ruling first on the jurisdictional issue, we hold that, contrary to the
respondent's assertion, the Court has the competence to act on the matter
at bar. Our finding is that what is before us is not a discretionary act of the
House of Representatives that... may not be reviewed by us because it is
political in nature. What is involved here is the legality, not the wisdom, of
the act of that chamber in removing the petitioner from the Commission on
Appointments.
To summarize, then, we hold, in view of the foregoing considerations, that
the issue presented to us is justiciable rather than political, involving as it
does the legality and not the wisdom of the act complained of, or the
manner of filling the Commission on
Appointments as prescribed by the Constitution. Even if the question were
political in nature, it would still come within our powers of review under the
expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us by Article VIII, Section 1, of the
Constitution, which includes the... authority to determine whether grave
abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction has been
committed by any branch or instrumentality of the government. As for the
alleged technical flaw in the designation of the party respondent,
assuming... the existence of such a defect, the same may be brushed
aside, conformably to existing doctrine, so that the important constitutional
issue raised may be addressed. Lastly, we resolve that issue in favor of
the authority of the House of Representatives to... change its
representation in the Commission on Appointments to reflect at any time
the changes that may transpire in the political alignments of its
membership. It is understood that such changes must be permanent and
do not include the temporary... alliances or factional divisions not involving
severance of political loyalties or formal disaffiliation and permanent shifts
of allegiance from one political party to another.
The Court would have preferred not to intervene in this matter, leaving it to
be settled by the House of Representatives or the Commission on
Appointments as the bodies directly involved. But as our jurisdiction has
been invoked and, more importantly,... because a constitutional stalemate
had to be resolved, there was no alternative for us except to act, and to act
decisively. In doing so, of course, we are not imposing our will upon the
said agencies, or substituting our discretion for theirs, but merely...
discharging our sworn responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution.
That is a duty we do not evade, lest we ourselves betray our oath.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The temporary restraining
order dated January 13, 1989, is LIFTED. The Court holds that the
respondent has been validly elected as a member of the Commission on
Appointments and is entitled to... assume his seat in that body pursuant to
Article VI, Section 18, of the Constitution. No pronouncement as to costs.

Principles:
The Court held that this was a justiciable and not a political question, thus:
Such is not the nature of the question for determination in the present
case. Here, we are called upon to decide whether the election of Senators
Cuenco and Delgado by the Senate, as members of the Senate Electoral
Tribunal,... upon nomination by Senator Primicias -- a member and
spokesman of the party having the largest number of votes in the Senate --
on behalf of its Committee on Rules, contravenes the constitutional
mandate that said members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal... shall be
chosen "upon nomination x x x of the party having the second largest
number of votes" in the Senate, and hence, is null and void. The Senate is
not clothed with "full discretionary authority" in the choice of members of...
the Senate Electoral Tribunal. The exercise of its power thereon is subject
to constitutional limitations which are claimed to be mandatory in nature. It
is clearly within the legitimate province of the judicial department to pass
upon the... validity of the proceeding in connection therewith.
In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objection becomes even less
tenable and decisive. The reason is that, even if we were to assume that
the issue presented before us was political in nature, we would still not be
precluded from... resolving it under the expanded jurisdiction conferred
upon us that now covers, in proper cases, even the political question.
Article VII, Section 1, of the Constitution clearly provides:
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of... jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.