The current debate in the Philippines' Senate on who is in the majority and minority will create complications on how the seats allocated for the Commission on Appointments and the Senate Electoral Tribunal should be apportioned.
Should it be apportioned based on what the constitution requires or should it be on political compromises?
Article VI, section 18, of the 1987 Constitution provides as follows:
There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex-officio Chairman, twelve senators and twelve members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and parties or reorganizations registered under the party list system represented therein. The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members.
This is a substantial reproduction of the corresponding section in the Commonwealth Constitution and reiterates the system of proportional representation of the parties sitting in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The additional rule is the requirement that, all appointments submitted to the Commission must be acted upon within thirty session days from their submission. Ad interim appointments not acted upon at the time of the adjournment of the Congress, even if the thirty days period has not yet expired are deemed bypassed under Article VII, Section 16.
The function of the Commission on Appointments is to consent to or confirm nominations or appointments submitted to it by the President. The Commission is thus intended to serve as an administrative check on the appointing authority of the President.
Like the composition of the Senate Electoral Tribunals, the structure of the Commission on Appointments departs from that of its counter part in the 1935 Constitution which gave preferential representation only to the two largest political parties represented in each House. The 1987 Constitution calls for proportional representation of all political parties and parties or organizations registered under the party list system.
Although the Commission on Appointments is formed through the instrumentality of the two houses of Congress, the Commission itself, once formed is independent of Congress. The Supreme Court in the case of Cunanan vs. Tan ruled that:
The Commission on Appointments is a creature of the Constitution. Although its membership is confined to members of Congress, the said commission is independent of Congress. The powers of the Commission do not come from Congress, but emanate directly from the Constitution. Hence, it is not an agent of Congress. In fact, the functions of the Commission are purely executive in nature.
Since the composition of the Commission on Appointments is proportional to the size of the political parties and organizations in Congress, periodic reorganization may be necessary in order to reflect changes in the proportion within Congress. However, to justify reorganization, the changes in the political complexion of the House must be permanent and not temporary in nature.
Citing further Cunanan vs. Tan, , the Supreme Court ruled that:
In other words, a shifting of votes at a given time, even if due to arrangements of more or less temporary in nature….. does not suffice to authorize a reorganization of the membership of the Commission for said House. Otherwise, the Commission on Appointments may have to be reorganized as often as votes shift from one side to another in the House. The framers of our Constitution could not have intended to thus place a constitutional organ, like the Commission on Appointments at the mercy of each House of Congress.
In subsequent cases decided by the Supreme Court, the High Court has settled the interpretation on Article VI, section 18 of the 1987 Constitution which provides for the composition of the Commission on Appointments.
The Supreme Court in the cases of Coseteng vs. Mitra and Guingona vs. Gonzales , laid down the following guidelines in filling up seats in the Commission on Appointments:
1. In the Senate, a political party or coalition must have at least two (2) duly elected senators for every seat in the Commission on Appointments.
2. Where there are more than two (2) political parties represented in the Senate, a political party/coalition with a single senator in the Senate cannot constitutionally claim a seat in the Commission.
Further, the Supreme Court ruled that:
1. No party can claim more than what is entitled to under such rule. To allow it to elect more than its proportionate share of members is to confer upon such party a greater share in the membership of the Commission on Appointments and more power to impose its will on the minority, who by the same taken, suffers a diminution of its rightful membership in the Commission.
2. Compliance with section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution on proportional representation in the Commission of political parties is MANDATORY.
3. Mathematical formula to determine proportional representation in the CA:
No. of senators of a political party x 12 seats
________________________________________
Total no.of senators elected
Applying the foregoing rulings of the Supreme Court, we now determine the proportional representation in the Commission on Appointments of the Senate as follows:
Minority Group
based on party affiliation)
Membership Proportional Representatives In the Commission
PDP LABAN - Pimentel 1.0
Madrigal
Independent - Lacson 0.5
Trillanes 0.5
Liberal - Roxas 2.0
Biazon
Aquino III
NPC - Legarda 0.5
Majority Group
(based on party affiliation)
Membership Proportional Representatives In the Commission
Lakas - Gordon 2.5
Lapid
Cayetano
Revilla
NP - Villar 1.0
Cayetano
PRP - Defensor-Santiago 0.5
Independent - Arroyo 0.5
NPC - Escudero 0.5
LDP - Angara 0.5
PMP - Estrada J. 1.0
Enrile
The Supreme Court in the case of Guingona vs. Gonzales prohibits the rounding off of proportional party representatives, when it ruled that:
By requiring a proportional representation in the Commission on Appointments, section 18 in effect works as a check on the majority party in the Senate and helps maintain the balance of power. No party can claim more than what it is entitled to under such rule. To allow it to elect more than its proportional share of members is to confer upon such party a greater share in the membership in the Commission on Appointments, and more power to impose its will on the majority, who by same token, suffers a diminution of its rightful membership in the Commission.”
The Honorable Court in the afore-cited case of Guingona vs. Gonzales further ruled that:
The provision of Section 18 on proportional representation is mandatory in character and does not leave any discretion to the majority party in the Senate to disobey or disregard the rule on proportional representation; otherwise, the party with a majority representation in the Senate or in the House of Representatives can by sheer force of numbers impose its will on the hapless minority. By requiring a proportional representation in the Commission on Appointments, Section 18 in effect works as a check on the majority party in the Senate and helps to maintain the balance of power. No party can claim more than what is entitled to under such rule. To allow it to elect more than its proportional share in the membership in the Commission on Appointments is to confer upon such a party by a greater share in the membership in the Commission on Appointments and more power to impose its will on the minority, who by the same token suffers a diminution of its rightful membership in the Commission.
Finally, in the 1951 case of Cabili vs. Francisco (GR no.L-4638), the Supreme Court ruled that, “the positions of confidence [in the Commission on Appointments] and if the House desires to withdraw the confidence from some of its members it may do so at any time.”
As to the composition of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, the following constitutional provision is applicable:
Article VI, Section 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
Using as basis the mathematical formula on proportional representation of political parties in the Commission on Appoiintments, the formula for the Senate Electoral Tribunal is as follows:
No. of senators of a political party x 6 seats
________________________________________
Total no.of senators elected
Minority Group
(based on party affiliation)
Membership Proportional Representatives In the SET
PDP LABAN - Pimentel 0.5
Madrigal
Independent - Lacson 0.25
Trillanes 0.25
Liberal - Roxas 0.75
Biazon
Aquino III
NPC - Legarda 0.25
Majority Group
(based on party affiliation)
Membership Proportional Representatives In the SET
Lakas - Gordon 1.0
Lapid
Cayetano
Revilla
NP - Villar 0.5
Cayetano
PRP - Defensor-Santiago 0.25
Independent - Arroyo 0.25
NPC - Escudero 0.25
LDP - Angara 0.25
PMP - Enrile 0.5
Estrada
No comments:
Post a Comment