[Sec 4, Art VII]
In a litany of cases, this Court has long recognized that these
ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL vs. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (2010)
FACTS: Petition filed by Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal (Atty. Macalintal), that questions
the constitution of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) as an illegal and
unauthorized progeny of Section 4(7), Article VII of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of
all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications
of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its
rules for the purpose.
While petitioner concedes that the Supreme Court is "authorized to promulgate its
rules for the purpose," he chafes at the creation of a purportedly "separate
tribunal" complemented by a budget allocation, a seal, a set of personnel and
confidential employees, to effect the constitutional mandate.
Further, petitioner highlights the SC decision in Buac v. COMELEC which peripherally
declared that "contests involving the President and the Vice-President fall within
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the PET, x x x in the exercise of quasi-judicial
power." On this point, petitioner reiterates that the constitution of the PET, with
the designation of the Members of the Court as Chairman and Members thereof,
contravenes Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution, which prohibits the
designation of Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by
law to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
PETITIONER: Petitioner is adamant on his contention that the provision, as worded,
does not authorize the constitution of the PET. And although he concedes that the
Supreme Court may promulgate its rules for this purpose, petitioner is insistent that
the constitution of the PET is unconstitutional. However, petitioner avers that it
allows the Court to appoint additional personnel for the purpose, notwithstanding
the silence of the constitutional provision.
ISSUE: W/N the creation of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) is
unconstitutional for being a violation of Sec 4(7) of article VII of the 1987
constitution.
HELD: NO
The Supreme Court, as a Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), the Senate Electoral
Tribunal (SET) and House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) are electoral
tribunals, each specifically and exclusively clothed with jurisdiction by the
Constitution to act respectively as "sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications" of the President and Vice-President, Senators, and
Representatives.
electoral tribunals exercise jurisdiction over election contests only after a candidate
has already been proclaimed winner in an election.
Petitioner, a prominent election lawyer who has filed several cases before this
Court involving constitutional and election law issues, cannot claim ignorance of: (1)
the invocation of our jurisdiction under Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution;
and (2) the unanimous holding thereon. Unquestionably, the overarching
framework affirmed in Tecson v. COMELEC is that the Supreme Court has original
jurisdiction to decide presidential and vice-presidential election protests while
concurrently acting as an independent Electoral Tribunal.
It is a well-established rule in constitutional construction that no one provision of
the Constitution is to be separated from all the others, to be considered alone, but
that all the provisions bearing upon a particular subject are to be brought into view
and to be so interpreted as to effectuate the great purposes of the instrument.
Sections bearing on a particular subject should be considered and interpreted
together as to effectuate the whole purpose of the Constitution and one section is
not to be allowed to defeat another, if by any reasonable construction, the two can
be made to stand together.
In other words, the court must harmonize them, if practicable, and must lean in
favor of a construction which will render every word operative, rather than one
which may make the words idle and nugatory.
On its face, the contentious constitutional provision does not specify the
establishment of the PET. But neither does it preclude, much less prohibit,
otherwise. It entertains divergent interpretations which, though unacceptable to
petitioner, do not include his restrictive view – one which really does not offer a
solution.
Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution, the provision under scrutiny, should be
read with other related provisions of the Constitution such as the parallel provisions
on the Electoral Tribunals of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
A plain reading of Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, readily reveals a grant of
authority to the Supreme Court sitting en banc. In the same vein, although the
method by which the Supreme Court exercises this authority is not specified in the
provision, the grant of power does not contain any limitation on the Supreme
Court’s exercise thereof. The Supreme Court’s method of deciding presidential and
vice-presidential election contests, through the PET, is actually a derivative of the
exercise of the prerogative conferred by the aforequoted constitutional provision.
Thus, the subsequent directive in the provision for the Supreme Court to
"promulgate its rules for the purpose."
The conferment of full authority to the Supreme Court, as a PET, is equivalent to the
full authority conferred upon the electoral tribunals of the Senate and the House of
Representatives

The PET is not a separate and distinct entity from the Supreme Court, albeit it has
functions peculiar only to the Tribunal. It is obvious that the PET was constituted in
implementation of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution, and it faithfully
complies – not unlawfully defies – the constitutional directive. The adoption of a
separate seal, as well as the change in the nomenclature of the Chief Justice and the
Associate Justices into Chairman and Members of the Tribunal, respectively, was
designed simply to highlight the singularity and exclusivity of the Tribunal’s
functions as a special electoral court.

GAHKglkasg