Constitutional Law
Bondoc v. Pineda
G.R. No. 97710: September 26, 1991
FACTS:
Marciano Pineda of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino Party was proclaimed
Representative for the Fourth District of Pampanga in the 1987 elections. Dr. Emigdio
Bondoc of the Nacionalista Party filed a protest with the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal, which is composed of nine members, three of whom are Justices of the Supreme
Court while the rest are members of the House of Representatives chosen according to the
composition of the House by political party and party-list.
In October 1990, Bondoc was proclaimed winner by a margin of 23 votes. The LDP
requested for a recount, which resulted in increasing Bondoc’s lead over Pineda to 107 votes.
On March 5, 1991, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Promulgation of Decision on March 14,
1991 at 2:30 pm. Congressman Juanito Camasura, Jr., revealed to Congressman Jose
Cojuangco, Jr., Secretary General of the LDP, that he voted for Bondoc out of truth, justice,
and self-respect. On March 13, 1991, Congressman Cojuangco informed Congressmen
Camasura and Benjamin Bautista that they had been expelled from the LDP on February 28,
1991, for allegedly helping to organize the Partido Pilipino of Eduardo “Danding”
Cojuangco, and for allegedly inviting the other members of the LDP to join the said party.
On March 4, 1991, the Chairman of the Tribunal, Justice Ameurfina Herrera, received
a letter dated March 13, 1991 from the Office of the Secretary General of the House of
Representatives, informing the Tribunal that the LDP was withdrawing its nomination and
rescinding the election of Congressman Camasura to the House of Electoral Tribunal.
On March 14, 1991, the Tribunal resolved that the Decision was being cancelled
because without Congressman Camasura’s vote, the Decision would lack the concurrence of
five members as required by the Section 24 of the Rules of the Tribunal. It also announced
that all the other members of the Tribunal intended to resign.
The Supreme Court declined the request of the three Justices of the Tribunal to be
relieved of their duties. It also held that the term of office of every member is co-extensive
with the corresponding legislative term.
On March 21, 1991, Dr. Egmidio Bondoc filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition,
and mandamus, praying that 1) the withdrawal of Congressman Camasura be annulled, 2) the
substitute of Camasura be restrained from assuming functions as a member of the Tribunal,
and 3) Congressman Camasura be ordered to resume his office as a member of the Tribunal.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not the Resolution of the House of Representatives withdrawing their
nomination of Congressman Camasura as member of the Tribunal violates the
independence of the Tribunal
2) Whether or not the members of the Electoral Tribunal enjoy security of tenure
1
Constitutional Law
3) Whether or not there exist valid grounds for removal of a member of the Electoral
Tribunal
RULING:
1) The action of the House of Representatives is clearly violative of the constitutional
mandate (Sec. 17, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution) which created the House Electoral Tribunal to
be the “sole judge” of the election contest between Pineda and Bondoc since the expulsion of
Congressman Camasura from the House Electoral Tribunal by the House of Representatives
was not for a lawful and valid cause, but to unjustly interfere with the Tribunal’s disposition
of the Bondoc case and to deprive Bondoc of the fruits of the Tribunal’s decision in his favor.
2) & 3) Members of the Tribunal as “sole judge” of congressional election contests,
are entitled to security of tenure just as members of the judiciary enjoy security of tenure
under our Constitution (Sec. 2, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution). Therefore, membership in the
House Electoral Tribunal may not be terminated except for a just cause, such as, the
expiration of the member’s 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 political group. As the records of this case fail to show that
Congressman Camasura has become a registered member of another political party, his
expulsion from the LDP and from the Tribunal was not for a valid cause, hence, it violated
his right to security of tenure.
2