High Court upholds justices’ inclusion in HRET

The Supreme Court has declared that the inclusion of three of its justices in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) is meant “to tone down the political nature of the cases” and “to assure impartiality in the judgment.”

The declaration was contained in a decision written by Acting Chief Justice Antonio T. Carpio, dismissing the petition of former Marinduque Rep. Regina Ongsiako Reyes who challenged the constitutionality of some provisions in the 2015 Revised Rules of the HRET.

Under the Constitution, the tribunal is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualification of the members of the House.

Three Supreme Court justices and six members of the House make up the collegial body.

Reyes had challenged Rule 6(a) which provides that “the presence of at least one justice and four members of the Tribunal shall be necessary to constitute a quorum.”

She said that the rule on the presence of one Supreme Court magistrate to constitute a quorum violates the constitutional equal protection clause and gives undue power to the justices over the legislators.

On the presence of one justice and four members constituting a quorum, the court said: “This means that even when all the Justices are present, at least two members of the House of Representatives need to be present to constitute a quorum. Without this rule, it would be possible for five members of the House of Representatives to convene and have a quorum even when no Justice is present.”

It said Reyes “is nitpicking in claiming that Rule 6(a) unduly favors the justices “because under the same rule, it is possible for four members of the House of Representatives and only one Justice to constitute a quorum.”

The court also said the rule does not violate the equal protection clause. “There are only three Justice-members while there are six Legislator-members of the HRET. Hence, there is a valid classification. The classification is justified because it was placed to ensure the presence of members from both the Judicial and Legislative branches of the government to constitute a quorum,” it said.

Reyes had also questioned the alleged ambiguity in the HRET rules, particularly on cases of inhibition of members, under Rules 6 and 69.

But the court belied the ambiguity claim. “A member of the Tribunal who inhibits or is disqualified from participating in the deliberations cannot be considered present for the purpose of having a quorum,” it said.

It pointed out that Rule 69 “clearly shows that the SC and the House of Representatives have the authority to designate a Special Member or Members who could act as temporary replacement or replacements in cases when one or some of the Members of the Tribunal inhibit from a case or are disqualified from participating in the deliberations of a particular election contest when the required quorum cannot be met.”

The court also debunked Reyes’ contention that the Revised Rules of the HRET expanded the jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on cases involving members of the House.

“The HRET’s jurisdiction is provided under Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. There is no room for the Comelec to assume jurisdiction because HRET’s jurisdiction is constitutionally mandated.”

It pointed out that an election protest or a petition for quo warranto should be filed within 15 days from June 30 of the election year “if the winning candidate was proclaimed on or before said date; however, if the winning candidate was proclaimed after June 30 of the election year, ...within fifteen (15) days from the date of promulgation.”