Daza vs Singson

G.R. No. 86344

December 21, 1989
Cruz, J.
In relation to judicial and political questions in Chapter 06 of Cruz.
FACTS:
After the congressional elections of May 11, 1987, the House of Representatives
proportionally apportioned its twelve (12) seats in the Commission on Appointments
(COA) among the several political parties represented in that chamber in accordance
with Article VI, Section 18, of the Constitution. Petitioner Raul A. Daza was among those
chosen and was listed as a representative of the Liberal Party (LP).
On September 16, 1988, the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) was reorganized,
resulting in a political realignment in the House of Representatives. Members of LP
formally resigned from that party and joined the LDP, 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 COA 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 to challenge his removal from the COA and the
assumption of his seat by the respondent. The petitioner contends that he cannot be
removed from the COA 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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the issue assailed by petitioners is political in nature, and beyond the
jurisdiction of this Court.
RULING:
No. The Court held that what is involved in the case is the legality, and not the
wisdom of the act of that chamber in removing the petitioner from the Commission on
Appointments. Hence, it is a justiciable rather than a political issue.
The term political question refers to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to
be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the
Government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a
particular measure.

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 that the judicial power shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.