Cheriemel Diane Muego

Constitutional Law 1
Sunday Class

G.R. No. 97710 September 26, 1991

DR. EMIGDIO A. BONDOC, petitioner,
vs.
REPRESENTATIVES MARCIANO M. PINEDA, MAGDALENO M. PALACOL, COL.
JUANITO G. CAMASURA, JR., or any other representative who may be appointed vice
representative Juanita G. Camasura, Jr., and THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, respondents.
______________________________________________________________________
Facts: Petitioner Emigdio A. Bondoc of the Nacionalista Party and respondent Marciano
Pineda of Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) were rival candidates for the position
of Representative for the Fourth District if the province of Pampanga where the
petitioner earned 28, 400 votes while the respondent got 31, 700 votes based on the
canvass made by the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Pampanga during the
congressional elections held in May 11, 1987.
Thus, respondent Pineda was proclaimed as the winner in the said election. Bondoc
filed a protest to the House of Representatives Electoral tribunal which was composed
of nine members from the Supreme Court and from the House of representatives
chosen through proportional representation from the political parties.
In October 1990, a decision came out where Bondoc won over Pineda by twenty-three
votes. Members of the LDP insisted for a recount but it only resulted to an increase in
Bondocs lead with 107 votes.
Congressman Camasura, member of the electoral tribunal revealed to LDP Secretary
General, Congressman Jose S. Conjuangco the final tally of votes and more
importantly, that he voted in favor with Bondoc to be consistent with the truth and justice
and self-respect.
On the eve of Bondocs promulgation, LDP, through their Secretary General Informed
Congressman Camasura that he is already expelled from the party. Speaker Ramon
Mitra was also informed of the decision and made to take note of it in matters where
party memebership is required.
The chairman of HRET, Mme. Justice Ameurfina M. Herrera also received a letter
informing her that LDP withdraw the nomination and rescind the election of
Congressman Camasura Jr. to the HRET.
Respondent Pineda then moved to withdraw Camasura from the HRET. They further
prayed that a new election be held and that the new LDP representative be appointed in

the HRET. This new representative will be voting for Pineda in the reopening of the
election contest. Camasura was then removed by HRETs chairwoman Justice
Ameurfina Herrera. Naturally, Bondoc questioned such action before the Supreme Court
(SC) and filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the
respondents.
Pineda contends that the issue is already outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
because Camasuras removal is an official act of Congress and by virtue of the doctrine
of separation of powers, the judiciary may not interfere.
Issue/s: Whether or not the House of Representatives may change the party
representation in the electoral tribunal to impede the promulgation of a decision in a
pending election case?
Held: Sec. 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 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.
Therefore, the Court ruled on the negative and that the Constitution does not empower
the House of Representatives to do such reorganization through the replacement on
one member before the promulgation. The purpose of the constitutional convention
creating the Electoral Commission was to provide an independent and impartial tribunal
for the determination of contests to legislative office, devoid of partisan consideration.
Disloyalty to the party is not a valid cause for the termination of membership in the
Electoral Tribunal. Therefore, in expelling Congressman Camasura for casting a
conscience vote in favor of petitioner Bondoc, the House of representatives committed
a grave abuse of discretion, an injustice and a violation of the Constitution. Thus, the
expulsion of Congressman Camasura is null and void.
Another reason for the nullity of the expulsion resolution of the House of representatives
is that it violates Congressman Camasuras right to security of tenure. Members of the
HRET, as sole judge of congressional election contests, are entitled to security of tenure
just as members of the Judiciary enjoy security of tenure under the Constitution (Sec. 2
Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution). Therefore, membership in the HRET may not be
terminated except for a just cause, such as, the expiration of the members
congressional term of office, his death, permanent disability, resignation from the
political party he represents in the tribunal, formal affiliation with another political party
or removal for other valid cause. A member may not be expelled by the House of

Representatives for party disloyalty, short of proof that he has formally affiliated with
another.