ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS

Section 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral
Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective Members. Each electoral tribunal shall be composed of
nine members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated
by the Chief Justice and the remaining six shall be members of the Senate or the House
of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of
proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations
registered under the party-list system represented therein. The senior justice in the
Electoral tribunal shall be its Chairman.
1. Two Electoral Tribunals. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall
each have an Electoral Tribunal.
2. Composition of ET - Each electoral tribunal shall be composed of 9 members. 3
from the SC (to be designated by the CJ) and 6 from the respective House.
3. Why create an electoral tribunal independent from Congress. It is believed that
this system tends to secure decisions rendered with a greater degree of impartiality and
fairness to all parties. It also enables Congress to devote its full time to the performance
of its proper function, which is legislation, rather than spend part of its time acting as
judge of election contests.
Proportional Representation. The congressmen who will compose the
electoral tribunal shall be chosen on the basis of proportional
representation from the political and party-list parties.
Reason for Mixed Membership. The presence of justices of the
Supreme Court in the Electoral Tribunal neutralizes the effects of partisan
influences in its deliberations and invests its action with that measure of
judicial temper which is greatly responsible for the respect and confidence
people have in courts.185
Chairman. The senior Justice in the electoral tribunal shall be its
Chairman.
4. Independence. The Congress may not regulate the actions of the electoral tribunals
even in procedural matters. The tribunal is an independent constitutional body. (Angara
v. Electoral Commission)
5. Security of Tenure. Members of ET have security of tenure. Disloyalty to the party is
not a ground for termination. (Bondoc v. Pineda) (2002 Bar Question)
6. Power. The Electoral Tribunal shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to
the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members. The tribunal
has the power to promulgate rules relating to matters within its jurisdiction, including
period for filing election protests. (Lazatin v. HET) Electoral Tribunal has incidental
power to promulgate its rules and regulations for the proper exercise of its function
(Angara v. Electoral Commission)
7. Jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunal.
The Electoral Tribunal shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members.

The jurisdiction of HRET is not limited to constitutional qualifications. The word

qualifications cannot be read to be qualified by the term constitutional. Where
the law does not distinguish, the courts should likewise not. The filing of a
certificate of candidacy is a statutory qualification.(Guerrero v. COMELEC)
Where a person is contesting the proclamation of a candidate as senator, it is
SET which has exclusive jurisdiction to act. (Rasul v. COMELEC)
Contest after proclamation is the jurisdiction of HRET (Lazatin v. COMELEC)
When there is an election contest (when a defeated candidate challenge the
qualification and claims the seat of a proclaimed winner), the Electoral Tribunal is
the sole judge.
Errors that may be verified only by the opening of ballot boxes must be recoursed
to the electoral tribunal.
Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath and assumed
office as a member of the House, COMELECs jurisdiction over election contest
relating to his election, returns and qualifications ends, and the HRETs own
jurisdiction begins. (Aggabao v. COMELEC)
Nature of election contests. An election is not like an ordinary action in court.
Public interests rather than purely private ones are involved in its
determination.186 It is therefore not permissible that such a contest be settled by
stipulation between the parties, nor can judgment be taken by default; but the
case must be decided after thorough investigation of the evidence.
Absence of election contest. In the absence of an election contest, however,
the electoral tribunals are without jurisdiction. Thus, the power of each House to
defer oath-taking of members until final determination of election contests filed
against them has been retained by each House. (Angara v. Electoral
Commission)
Invalidity of Proclamation. An allegation of invalidity of a proclamation is a
matter that is addressed to the sound discretion of the Electoral Tribunal. (Lazatin
v. COMELEC)
Motion to Withdraw. The motion to withdraw does not divest the HRET the
jurisdiction on the case. (Robles v. HRET)