Bondoc vs.
Pineda, 201 SCRA 792 (1991)
Facts:
In the elections held on May 11, 1987, Marciano Pineda from the Laban ng
Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) and Bondoc of the Nacionalista Party (NP) were
rival candidates for Rep of the Fourth District of Pampanga. Pineda was
proclaimed winner of the election. Bondoc filed protest to house of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).
The decision held that Bondoc won over Pineda by a margin of 23 votes. The
LDP insisted a recount and the recount has increased Bondocs win by 107
votes. So congressman Camasura voted with the SC justices and
Congressman Cerilles proclaimed Bondoc the winner of the election.so
Camasura being a member of the LDP revealed to the chief congressman
Conjuanco that he voted for Bondoc and he did so in view of what was in line
with truth justice and self respect. The revelation prompted efforts by the
LDP to neutralize pro-Bondoc majority in the Tribunal.
So on the eve of promulgation of Bondocs win, Congressman Jose
Conjuangco thru a letter stated that Camasura and Bautista were being
expelled for the LDP for allegedly helping in the organization of Partido
Pilipino of Danding cojuanco and for having members of LDP join said pol
party. The LDP informed Herrera that they were no longer part of LDP hence;
his (Camasuras) vote in favor of Bondoc should be withdrawn. The judges in
HRET all wanted out cause of this distressing development. They were saying
that unseating should be prevented in all cost. They also said that the
tribunal should not be hampered in doing its constitutional function by
factors, which have nothing to do with the merits of the cases before it. The
Bondoc promulgation was cancelled because the decision lack the
concurrence of 5 members as required by Section 24 of the rules of the
tribunal. Bondoc asked the court to annul the decision of the House in
rescinding Camasuras nomination and restrain the replacement of
Camasura through a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.
Issue: Whether the House of Representatives, at the request of the
dominant political party therein, may change that partys representation in
the HRET to thwart the promulgation of a decision freely reached by the
tribunal in an election contest5 pending therein.
Ruling:
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.
As judges, the members of the tribunal must be non-partisan. They must
discharge their functions with complete detachment, impartiality and
independence even independence even independence from the political
party to which they belong. Hence, disloyalty to party and breach of party
discipline are not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member of the
triibunal. In expelling Cong. Camasura from the HRET for having cast a
conscience vote in favor of Bondoc, based strictly on the result of the
examination and appreciation of the ballots and the recount of the votes by
the tribunal, the House of Representatives committed a grave abuse of
discretion, an injustice and a violation of the Constitution. Its resolution of
expulsion against Congressman Camasura is, therefore, null and void.
So the HRET is the sole judge of all contests relation to the election, returns
and qualification of their respective members. The operative term found in
the section was sole Judge. It (HRET) was made to function as a nonpartisan court although 2/3 of its members are politicians. It is supposed to
provide an independent and impartial tribunal for the determination of
contests to legislative office devoid of partisan consideration. So they cant
just shuffle and manipulate the political component for the electoral tribunal
to serve the interests of party in power.
Its independence would be undermined if the removal of Camasura for as a
punishment for party disloyalty for voting for Bondoc would allow them to
change the judgment of the HRET in the Bondoc case.If allowed so, then the
HRET isnt really a sole judge of senatorial elections. The members of the
HRET are entitled to security of tenure just as the members of the judiciary
are. They can only be replaced in cases such as expiration, death, permanent
disability, resignation forms the political party, and formal affiliation with
another party of any valid cause hence mere disloyalty is not a valid cause
for termination.
