Scribd
Upload
234 views2 pages

I1. Lopez vs. Roxas

1. Fernando Lopez contested the 1965 election results claiming he won the vice presidency rather than Gerardo Roxas. Roxas filed a petition with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) contesting the results. 2. Lopez argued the PET is unconstitutional and that the Supreme Court justices sitting on the PET creates a conflict as the PET decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the PET is valid and does not create a new court. The PET is an extension of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and duties rather than a separate court. The PET has the power and jurisdiction to determine election results and contests.

Uploaded by

John Lester Tan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
234 views2 pages

I1. Lopez vs. Roxas

1. Fernando Lopez contested the 1965 election results claiming he won the vice presidency rather than Gerardo Roxas. Roxas filed a petition with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) contesting the results. 2. Lopez argued the PET is unconstitutional and that the Supreme Court justices sitting on the PET creates a conflict as the PET decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the PET is valid and does not create a new court. The PET is an extension of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and duties rather than a separate court. The PET has the power and jurisdiction to determine election results and contests.

Uploaded by

John Lester Tan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

1. Fernando Lopez vs.

Gerardo Roxas and Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET)


Facts:
Petitioner Fernando Lopez won as Vice President in the 1965 elections against
respondent Gerardo Roxas. Roxas then filed with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal contesting
that he won instead of the petitioner. Petitioner Lopez filed a petition in the Supreme Court
preventing the PET from hearing and deciding the aforementioned election contest, upon the
ground that Republic Act No. 1793, creating said Tribunal, is "unconstitutional," and that, "all
proceedings taken by it are a nullity." Petitioner contends that it is illegal for Justices of the
Supreme Court to sit as members of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, since the decisions
thereof are appealable to the Supreme Court on questions of law and that the Presidential
Electoral Tribunal is a court inferior to the Supreme Court.

Issue: WON PET is unconstitutional?; WON PET paves way to the creation of a new or separate
court?

Ruling: PET is valid. The creation of PET does not mean the creation of a new or separate
court.

Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1793, which provides that:

There shall be an independent Presidential Electoral Tribunal ... which shall be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the president-
elect and the vice-president-elect of the Philippines.
The said provision has the effect of giving said defeated candidate the legal right to contest
judicially the election of the President-elect or Vice-President-elect and to demand a recount of
the votes cast for the office involved in the litigation as well as to secure a judgment declaring
that he is the one elected president or vice-president, as the case may be, and that, as such, he is
entitled to assume the duties attached to said office. Further, Presidential Electoral Tribunal
"shall be composed of the Chief Justice and the other ten Members of the Supreme Court,"
said legislation has conferred upon such Court an additional original jurisdiction of an exclusive
character.
Republic Act No. 1793 has not created a new or separate court. It has merely
conferred (give/bestow) upon the Supreme Court the functions of a Presidential Electoral
Tribunal. Moreover, the Presidential Electoral Tribunal is not inferior to the Supreme Court,
since it is the same Court although the functions peculiar to said Tribunal are more limited in
scope than those of the Supreme Court in the exercise of its ordinary functions. It merely
connotes the imposition of additional duties upon the Members of the Supreme Court.

As to the composition of the PET, the power to be the "judge ... of ... contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications" of any public officer is essentially judicial. As such —
under the very principle of separation of powers invoked by petitioner herein — it belongs
exclusively to the judicial department, except only insofar as the Constitution provides
otherwise.

Moreover, the creation of PET is in harmony to the judicial power vested in lower courts.
The Presidential Electoral Tribunal has the judicial power to determine whether or not said duly
certified election returns have been irregularly made or tampered with, or reflect the true result of
the elections in the areas covered by each, and, if not, to recount the ballots cast, and,
incidentally thereto, pass upon the validity of each ballot or determine whether the same shall be
counted

You might also like