Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 106971 October 20, 1992 TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., AND LAKAS-NATIONAL UNION OF CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS (LAKASNUCD), petitioners, vs. NEPTALI A. GONZALES, ALBERTO ROMULO and WIGBERTO E. TAADA, respondents. NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION, petitioner-in-intervention.

CAMPOS, JR., J.: This is a petition for Prohibition to prohibit respondents Senator Alberto Romulo and Wigberto Taada from sitting and assuming the position of members of the Commission on Appointments and to prohibit Senators Neptali Gonzales, as ex-officio Chairman, of said Commission from recognizing and allowing the respondent senators to sit as members thereof. As a result of the national elections held last May 11, 1992, the Senate is composed of the following members or Senators representing the respective political affiliations: LDP 15 senators NPC 5 senators LAKAS-NUCD 3 senators LP-PDP-LABAN 1 senator Applying the mathematical formula agreed to by the parties as follow as: No. of senators of a political party x 12 seats Total no. of senators elected the resulting composition of the senate based on the rule of proportional representation of each political party with elected representatives in the Senate, is as follows: Political Party/ Proportional Political Coalition Membership Representatives LDP 15 7.5 members NPC 5 2.5 members LAKAS-NUCD 3 1.5 members LP-PDP-LABAN 1 .5 members At the organization meeting of the Senate held on August 27, 1992, Senator Romulo in his capacity as Majority Floor Leader nominated, for and in his behalf of the LDP, eight (8) senators for membership in the Commission on Appointments, namely Senators Angara, Herrera, Alvarez, Aquino, Mercado, Ople, Sotto and Romulo. The nomination of the eight senators 2 was objected to by Petitioner, Senator Guingona, as Minority Floor Leader, and Senator John Osmea, in representation of the NPC. To resolve the impasse, Senator Arturo Tolentino proposed a compromise to the effect that Senate elect 3 . . . 12 members to the Commission on Appointments, eight coming from the LDP, two coming from NPC, one coming from the Liberal Party, with the understanding that there are strong reservations against this proportion of these numbers so that if later on in action in the Supreme Court, if any party is found to have an excess in representation, and if any party is found to have a deficiency in representation, that party will be entitled to nominate and have elected by this body its additional representatives. The proposed compromise above stated was a temporary arrangement and, inspite of the objections of Senator Guingona and Osmea, to enable the Commission on Appointments to be organized by the election of its members, it was approved. The elected members consisted of eight LDP, one LP-PDP-LABAN, two NPC and one LAKAS-NUCD. On September 23, 1992, Senator Teofisto Guingona. Jr., in his behalf and in behalf of Lakas-National Union of Christian Democrats (LAKAS-NUCD), filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of prohibition to prohibit the respondent Senate President Neptali Gonzales, as ex-officio Chairman of the Commission on Appointments, from recognizing the membership of Senators Alberto Romulo as the eight senator elected by the LDP, and Wigberto E. Taada, as the lone member representing the LP-PDP-LABAN, in the Commission on Appointments, on the ground that the proposed compromise of Senator Tolentino was violative of the rule of proportional representation, and that it is the right of the minority political parties in the Senate, consistent with the Constitution, 4 to combine their fractional

representation in the Commission on Appointments to complete one seat therein, and to decide who, among the senators in their ranks, shall be additionally nominated and elected thereto. Section 18 Article VI of the Constitution of 1987 provides fro the creation of a Commission on Appointments and the allocation of its membership, as follows: Sec. 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate as ex-officio Chairman, twelve members of the House of Representatives, elected by each house on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties or organizations 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 the session days of the Congress from their submission of all the members. (Emphasis supplied.) Based on the mathematical computation of proportional representation of the various political parties with elected senators in the senators in the Senate, each of these political parties is entitled to a fractional membership in the Commission on Appointments as stated in the first paragraph of this decision. 5 Each political party has a claim to an extra half seat, and the election of respondents Senator Romulo and Senator Taada to the Commission on Appointments by the LDP majority is precisely questioned by the petitioners because, according to them, it unduly increased the membership of LDP and LP-PDP-LABAN in the commission and reduced the membership of the LAKAS-NUCD and NPC correspondingly. In view of the conflicting claims of each of the political parties/coalition duly represented in the Senate to a fractional membership in the Commission on Appointments, the election of respondents Senator Romulo and Senator Taada has become controversial and its validity questionable. Hence, this petition. It has been established that the legality of filling up the membership of the Commission on Appointments is a justiciable issue and not a political question. 6 We deem it necessary to resolve the respondents' argument as to the nature of the instant petition. There is no doubt that the issues involved herein are constitutional in nature and are of vital importance to our nation. They involve the interpretation of Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution which creates a Commission on Appointments. Where constitutional issues are properly raised in the context of the alleged facts, procedural questions acquire a relatively minor significance 7 and the "transcendental importance to the public of the case demands that they be settled promptly and definitely brushing aside . . . technicalities of procedure". 8 For the purpose of resolving the case at bar, the instant petition may be regarded as one of prohibition 9 wherein the Senate is claimed to have acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction when it designated respondent Senator Romulo as eighth member of the Commission on Appointments, upon nomination by the LDP, and respondent Senator Taada as LP nominee, notwithstanding, that, in both instance, LDP and LP are each entitled only to "half a member". In the alternative, the petition may be regarded as one for mandamus, 10 in which it is claimed that the LAKAS-NUCD and NPC were unlawfully excluded from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which each is entitled. Considering the importance of the case at bar and in keeping with the Court's duty under the Constitution to keep the other branches of the government within the limits of the Constitution and the laws of the land, this Court has decided to brush aside legal technicalities of procedure and take cognizance of this case. The issues for determination by this Court may be stated as follows: 1) Whether the election of Senators Alberto Romulo and Wigberto E. Taada as members of the Commission on Appointments is in accordance with the provision of Section 18 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. 2) If said membership of the respondent senators in the Commission is violative of the Constitutional provision, did the respondent Senate act in grave abuse of discretion in electing the respondent Senators? 3) If there was grave abuse of discretion by respondent Senate, acting through the LDP majority, should a writ of prohibition enjoining, prohibiting and restraining respondent Senators from sitting as members of and participating in the proceeding of the Commission on Appointments be issued? It is an established fact to which all the parties agree that the mathematical representation of each of the political parties represented in the Senate is as follows: LDP 7.5 NPC .5 LAKAS-NUCD 2.5 LP-PDP-LABAN 1.5 It is also a fact accepted by all such parties that each of them entitled to a fractional membership on the basis of the rule on proportional representation of each of the political parties. A literal interpretation of Section 18 of Article VI of the Constitution leads to no other manner of application than as above. The problem is what to do with the fraction of .5 or 1/2 to which each of the parties is entitled. The LDP majority in the Senate converted a fractional half membership into a whole membership of one senator by adding one half or .5 to 7.5 to be able to elect Senator Romulo. In so doing one other party's fractional membership was correspondingly reduced leaving the latter's representation in the Commission on Appointments to less than their proportional representation in the Senate. This is clearly a violation of Section 18 because it is no longer in compliance with its mandate that membership in the Commission be based on the proportional representation of the political parties. The election of Senator Romulo gave more representation to the LDP and reduced the representation of one political party either the LAKAS-NUCD or the NPC.

On the claim of Senator Taada that under the ruling in the case of Senator Lorenzo Taada, 11 and the cases of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, he has a right to be elected as a member of the Commission on Appointments because of: (a) the physical impossibility of dividing a person, so that the fractional membership must be rounded up into one senator; (b) being the sole elected senator of his party, his party is entitled to be represented in the Commission on Appointments; (c) having been elected senator, rounding up into one full senator his fractional membership is consistent with the provision and spirit of the Constitution and would be in full accord with the principle of republicanism that emphasizes democracy. The cases of the two former senators mentioned cannot be invoked as a precedent in support of incumbent Senator Taada's claim to a membership in the present Commission on Appointments. In the time of his illustrious father, out of 24 elected senators in the upper chamber of Congress, 23 belonged to the Nacionalista Party, while Senator Lorenzo Taada, who belonged to the Citizen's Party, was the lone opposition. By force of circumstance, he became a member of the Commission on Appointments because he alone represented the minority party. Had there been another senator belonging to a party other than the Citizens' Party, this problem of who should sit as the sole representative of the opposition party would have arisen. In the case of Senator Ponce Enrile, there were two senators elected from the opposition party, namely, he and Senator Estrada. Applying the rule of proportional representation mentioned earlier (see formula), the opposition was entitled to full member (not a fractional membership). Senator Enrile was thus legally nominated and elected as the minority representative in the Senate. In the present case, if there were a political parties in the Senate, and We follow Senators Taada's claim that he is entitled to full membership as lone representative of his party, We the anomaly of having 13 senators, where the Constitution allows only twelve (12) in the Commission on Appointments. We find the respondents' claim to membership in the Commission on Appointments by nomination and election of the LDP majority in the Senate as not in accordance with Section 18 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and therefore violative of the same because it is not in compliance with the requirements that twelve senators shall be elected on the basis of proportional representation of the resulting fractional membership of the political parties represented therein. To disturb the resulting fractional membership of the political parties in the Commission on Appointments by adding together two halves to make a whole is a breach of the rule on proportional representation because it will give the LDP an added member in the Commission by utilizing the fractional membership of the minority political party, who is deprived of half a representation. 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 the House of Representatives can by sheer force of number 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 it is entitled to under such rule. To allow it to elect more than its proportional share of members is to confer upon such a party 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. Section 18, also assures representation in the Commission on Appointments of any political party who succeeds in electing members to the Senate, provided that the number of senators so elected enables it to put a representative in the Commission on Appointments. Drawing from the ruling in the case of Coseteng vs. Mitra, Jr., 12 a political party must have at least two senators in the Senate to be able to have a representatives in the Commission on Appointments, so that any number less than 2 will not entitle such a party a membership in the Commission on Appointments. This applies to the respondent Senator Taada. We lay down the following guidelines accordingly: 1) In the Senate, political party or coalition must have at least two duly elected senators for every seat in the Commission on Appointments. 2) Where there are more than two political parties represented in the Senate, a political party/coalition with a single senator in the Senate cannot constitutionally claims seat in the Commission. We do not agree with respondents' claim that it is mandatory to elect 12 Senators to the Commission on Appointments. The Constitution does not contemplate that the Commission on Appointments must necessarily include twelve (12) senators and twelve (12) members of the House of Representatives. What the Constitution requires is that there be at least a majority of the entire membership. Under Section 18, the Commission shall rule by majority vote of all the members and in Section 19, the Commission shall meet only while congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its members "to discharge such powers and functions herein conferred upon it". Implementing the above provisions of the Constitution, Section 10 Chapter 3 of the Rules of the Commission on Appointments, provides as follows: Sec. 10. Place of Meeting and Quorum: The Commission shall meet at either the session hall of the Senate or the House of Representatives upon call of the Chairman or as the Commission may designate. The presence of at least thirteen (13) members is necessary to constitute a quorum. Provided, however, that at least four (4) of the members constituting the quorum should come from either house. . . . It is quite evident that the Constitution does not require the election and presence of twelve (12) senators and twelve (12) members of the House of Representatives in order that the Commission may function. Other instances may be mentioned of Constitutional collegial bodies which perform their composition is expressly specified by the Constitution. Among these are the Supreme Court, 13 Civil Service Commission, 14 Commission on Election, 15 Commission on Audit. 16 They perform their function so long and there is the required quorum, usually a majority of its membership. The Commission on Appointments may perform its functions and transact it s business even if only ten (10) senators are elected thereto as long as a quorum exists.

It may also be mentioned that while the Constitution provides for equal membership from the Senate and the House of Representatives in the Commission on Appointments, the senators on the one hand, and the representatives, on the other, do not vote separately but jointly, and usually along party lines. Even if Senator Taada would not be able sit in the Commission on Appointments, the LP-LDP-LABAN would still be represented in the Commission by congressman Ponce Enrile who has become a member of the LP. On the other hand, there is nothing to stop any of the political party in order to fill up the two vacancies resulting from this decision. Assuming that the Constitution intended that there be always twelve (12) senators in the Commission on Appointments, the instant situation cannot be rectified by the Senate in disregard of the rule on proportional representation. The election of senator Romulo and Senator Taada as members of the Commission on Appointments by the LDP majority in the Senate was clearly a violation of Section 18 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Their nomination and election by the LDP majority by sheer force of superiority in numbers during the Senate organization meeting of August 27, 1992 was done in grave abuse of discretion. Where power is exercised in a manner inconsistent with the command of the Constitution, and by reason of numerical strength, knowingly and not merely inadvertently, said exercise amounts to abuse of authority granted by law and grave abuse of discretion is properly found to exist. In the light of the foregoing and on the basis of the applicable rules and jurisprudence on the matter before this Court, We declare the election of Senator Alberto Romulo and Senator Wigberto Taada as members of the Commission on Appointments as null and void for being in violation of the rule on proportional representation under Section 18 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. Accordingly, a writ of prohibition is hereby issued ordering the said respondents Senator Romulo and Senator Taada to desist from assuming, occupying and discharging the functions of members of the Commission on Appointments; and ordering the respondents Senate President Neptali Gonzales, in his capacity as ex-officio Chairman of the Commission on Appointments, to desist from recognizing the membership of the respondent Senators and from allowing and permitting them from sitting and participating as members of said Commission. SO ORDERED. Narvasa C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Romero, Nocon and Bellosillo, JJ., concur. Medialdea, J., is on leave,

Footnotes 1 Includes Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. 2 Senator Alberto Romulo. 3 T.S.N., Session of August 27, 1992, p. 29 as Annex to Petitions 4 Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution. 5 See page 2 of the Decision. 6 Coseteng vs. Mitra, Jr., 187 SCRA 377 (1990). 7 Daza vs. Sinson, 180 SCRA 496 (1989). 8 Osmea vs. Commission on Elections, 199 SCRA 750 ( 1991). 9 Section 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 10 Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 11 Taada vs. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 (1957). 12 Supra, note 6. 13 Section 4, Article VIII. 14 Section 1 (1), Article IX-A. 15 Section 1 (1), Article IX-C. 15 Section 1 (1), Article IX-D.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 106971 March 1, 1993 TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. and LAKAS-NATIONAL UNION OF CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS (LAKASNUCD),petitioners, vs. NEPTALI A. GONZALES, ALBERTO ROMULO and WIGBERTO E. TAADA, respondents. NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION, petitioner-in-intervention. Ricardo G. Nepomuceno for petitioners. Gonzales, Batiller, Bilog & Associates for respondents. RESOLUTION

CAMPOS, JR., J.: In motions separately filed by respondent Senator Wigberto E. Taada on October 27, 1992 and respondents Senate President Neptali A. Gonzales and Senator Alberto Romulo on October 30, 1992, said respondents moved for a reconsideration of our decision dated October 20, 1992, on the following grounds: Senator Taada alleges that: 1) The decision was premised on an erroneous appreciation of relevant factual precedents; 2) The decision ignored the reality of the multi-party system recognized both by the letter and spirit of the 1935 and 1987 Constitutions; 3) It is mandatory to fill up twelve (12) seats in the Commission on Appointments; 4) The Senate did not act with grave abuse of discretion when it elected respondent Taada to the Commission on Appointments. In their Motion for Reconsideration/Clarification, Senators Gonzales and Romulo allege: 1) That the decision is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in the two cases of Coseteng vs. Mitra, Jr. 1and Daza vs. Singson. 2 2) It is mandatory to have twelve (12) members of the Commission of Appointments to enable it to function as a constitutional body. 3) The Tolentino Compromise Formula was adopted by the Senate and accepted by all political parties and must govern the selection of respondent Senators to the Commission on Appointments. 4) The election of the respondents Senators is in compliance with the multi-party system which contemplates a realignment of political parties to remove fractional membership of any party in the Commission. On December 16, 1992, the petitioner-in intervention Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC) filed its separate Comments to the Motions of respondents Senators while the petitioners filed on January 7, 1993 their separate Comments on the Motion of the respondents. Considering the grounds set forth in the Motions of the respondents and in the light of the reasons/arguments submitted in refutation thereof, We deny both Motions for Reconsideration on the following grounds: 1) The decision is based on a simple interpretation and application of Article VI, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution and We quote pertinent portions thereof. It is an established fact to which all the parties agree that the mathematical representation of each of the political parties represented in the Senate is as follows: LDP 7.5 LP-PDP-LABAN .5

NPC 2.5 LAKAS-NUCD 1.5 It is also a fact accepted by all such parties that each of them is entitled to a fractional membership on the basis of the rule on proportional representation of each of the political parties. A literal interpretation of Section 18 of Article VI of the Constitution leads to no other manner of application than as above. The problem is what to do with the fraction of .5 or 1/2 to which each of the parties is entitled. The LDP majority in the Senate converted a fractional half membership into a whole membership of one senator by adding one half or .5 to 7.5 to be able to elect Senator Romulo. In so doing one other party's fractional membership was correspondingly reduced leaving the latter's representation in the Commission on Appointments to less than their proportional representation in the Senate. This is a clearly a violation of Section 18 because it is no longer in compliance with its mandate that membership in the Commission be based on the proportional representation of the political parties. The election of Senator Romulo gave more representation to the LDP and reduced the representation of one political party either the LAKAS-NUCD or the NPC. xxx xxx xxx We find the respondent's claim to membership in the Commission on Appointments by nomination and election of the LDP majority in the Senate as not in accordance with Section 18 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and therefore violative of the same because it is not in compliance with the requirement that twelve senators shall be elected on the basis of proportional representation of the political parties represented therein. To disturb the resulting fractional membership of the political parties in the Commission on Appointments by adding together two halves to make a whole is a breach of the rule on proportional representation because it will give the LDP an added member in the Commission by utilizing the fractional membership of the minority political party, who is deprived of half a representation.
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 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 of members is to confer upon such a party 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. 3

The membership of the late Senator Lorenzo Taada in the Commission on Appointments for the year alluded to by respondents is not disputed. The questioned decision however refers to the former Senator's Membership in the Commission during his first election as Senator in 1953-1954. 4 In the following years the composition of the Commission on Appointments showed varying membership from the Nacionalista Party and Liberal Party, not discounting the various coalitions of the rival groups within their own ranks. During this period, his membership in the Commission was acquiesced to by the other members of the Senate, including the Nationalista Party which had a fractional vote. His membership in the Commission was never contested nor disputed by any party nor member of the Senate so that the question of whether his sitting as member of the Commission was constitutionality valid or not never reached the Court. The older Taada's membership in the Commission on Appointments cannot thus be considered by respondent Senator Taada as a precedent sufficient to overrule the clear mandate of Article VI, Section 18 of the Constitution. It is a matter of record that in the political ventures of the late Senator Lorenzo Taada, he had his Citizens Party coalesce with the Nationalista Party and got himself elected as Senator under the banner of the latter party. His election to the Commission was principally due to the alliance of his Citizens Party with the Nationalista Party and not because he was elected thereto on the strength of his being the lone representative of the Citizens' Party. 5Senator Taada was included in the Nationalista Party ticket in 1953 until he parted ways temporarily with the same before the end of 1955. In 1959 he ran as a guest candidate of the Nationalista Party for a term of 6 years and again got re-elected in 1965 for another 6-year term under the Nationalista Party. The Nationalista-Citizens Party coalition of 12 Senators in the Senate from

1965-1967 gave the coalition 6 members in the Commission on Appointments, including the late Senator Lorenzo Taada. As early as those years, the Senate recognized the rule on proportional representation in the Commission by resorting to a coalition of political parties in order to resolve and avoid fractional membership in the Commission. This practice was repeated in 1968-1970 where the lone elected Senator of the Citizens Party was nominated and elected to the Commission on Appointments as the Senator to complete a whole number in the proportional representation to the Commission, with the late Senator Taada becoming the 16th Senator of the Coalition, enabling it to put 8 members in the Commission. Likewise, in 1970, the late Senator Taada filled up the 18th membership of the Coalition to become the 9th member representing the Coalition in the Commission. The election of the late Senator Lorenzo Taada to the Commission on Appointments does not reflect any practice or tradition in the Senate which can be considered as a precedent in the interpretation of the constitutional provision on proportional representation in the Commission on Appointments. No practice or tradition, established by a mere tolerance, can, without judicial acquiescence, ripen into a doctrine of practical construction of the fundamental law. In the absence of judicial confirmation of the constitutionality of the challenged legislative practice the repeated erroneous legislative interpretation of a constitutional provision, does not vest power on the legislature. 6 2) We take note of an erroneous reference in our decision to the listing of the party affiliation of the Senators based on the result of the election on May 11, 1992, giving the LDP only 15 members and including Senator Teofisto Guingona as a member of the Lakas-NUCDP. Respondents, however, accepted the fact that for purposes of determining the proportional representatives of each political party to the Commission on Appointments, the basis thereof is the actual number of members of each political party at the time of election of the members of the Commission on Appointments in the Senate. 7 In fact, respondents affirmed that the affiliation of Senator Guingona with the Lakas-NUCDP upheld the doctrine enunciated in Daza vs. Singson, 8 recognizing changes in alignments of membership in the Commission based on changing political alignments at the time of the organization of the Commission on Appointments. The issue therefore has no significance as an argument to set aside our decision. 3) Senator Taada was actually nominated by the LP because the house rules require that the party must make the nomination. In fact he nominated himself as representative of the LP-LDP-LABAN. It was the Majority Leader, an LDP Senator, (Senator Romulo) who presented the motion to elect respondent Senator Taada (along with the Senators belonging to the other Minority parties NPC and LAKAS-NUCD) as part of his function or duty to present for election and votation those previously nominated by the various political parties. In nominating the twelve (12) Senators to the membership in the Commission on Appointments, Senator Romulo moved:
Mr. President, pursuant to the Motion just approved, I have the honor to submit for election to the Commission on Appointments the 12 Senators to compose its membership : Senators Angara, Herrera, Alvarez, Aquino, Mercado, Ople, Sotto and Romulo for the LDP; Senators Tolentino and Osmea for NPC; Senator Rasul, for Lakas-NUCD; and Senator Taada for LP-PDP, Mr. President. 9

4) This Court has ruled that, under Article VI, Section 18 of the Constitution providing for a multi-party system, entitlement to proportional representation in the Commission on Appointments requires a minimum membership in each house. 10 The statement of this Court in Daza vs. Singson 11 to the effect that "under the Constitutional provision on membership of the Commission on Appointments, the members thereof are NOT limited to the majority and minority parties therein but extends to all the political parties represented in each house of Congress", does not and should not be construed to mean that all political parties, irrespective of numerical representation in the Senate, are entitled by Constitutional fiat to at least one representation in the Commission. The Supreme Court in the subsequent case of Coseteng vs. Mitra, Jr. 12 made this clear where it ruled that proportional representation in the Commission on Appointments requires a minimum membership of a party in each house. The mere presence of one Senator belonging to a political party does not ipso facto entitle such a party to membership in the Commission on Appointments. 5) We have declared that the Constitution does not require that the full complement of 12 Senators be elected to the membership in the Commission on Appointments before it can discharge its functions and that it is not mandatory to elect 12 Senators to the Commission. The overriding directive of Article VI, Section 18 is that there must be a proportional representation of the political parties in the membership of the Commission on Appointments and that the specification of 12 members to constitute its membership is merely an indication of the maximum complement allowable under the Constitution. The act of filling up the membership thereof cannot disregard the mandate of proportional representation of the parties even if it results in fractional membership in unusual situations like the case at bar.

Section 18 provides, in part, as follows: There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate as exofficioChairman, twelve Senators, and . . . , elected by each house on the basis of proportional representation . . . . The respondent's contention that the use of the word "shall" in Section 18 indicating the composition of the Commission on Appointments makes the election of the Senators mandatory, omitting that part of Section 18 which provides that (they shall be) elected by each house on the basis of proportional representation. This interpretation finds support in the case of Taada vs. Cuenco, 13 where this Court held that the constitutional provision makes mandatory the election of the specified number of Senators to the Commission on Appointments but also ruled that they should be elected on the basis of proportional representation of the political parties. In case of conflict in interpretation, the latter mandate requiring proportional representation must prevail. Such interpretation is the only correct and rational interpretation which the court can adopt in consonance with its solemn duty to uphold the Constitution and give effect the meaning intended by its framers to every clause and word thereof. The Constitution does not require the election and presence of twelve Senators and twelve Representatives in order that the Commission may function. Article VI, Section 18 which deals with the Commission on Appointments, provides that "the Commission shall rule by majority vote of all the members", and in Section 19 of the same Article, it is provided that the Commission "shall meet only while Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers and functions as are herein conferred upon it". In implementing these provisions, the Rules of the Commission on Appointments provide that the presence of at least thirteen (13) members is necessary to constitute a quorum, "Provided however, that at least four (4) of the members constituting the quorum should come from either house". 14 Even if the composition of the Commission is fixed by the Constitution, it can perform its functions even if not fully constituted, so long as it has the required quorum, which is less than the full complement fixed by the Constitution. And the Commission can validly perform its functions and transact its business even if only ten (10) Senators are elected thereto. Even if respondent Senator Taada is excluded from the Commission on Appointments for violation of the rule on proportional representation, the party he represents still has representation in the Commission in the presence of house members from the LP-LDP-LABAN such as Congressman Juan Ponce Enrile. Respondents ask for a clarification of our statement which suggested a practical solution to break the impasse in the membership of the Senate in the Commission on Appointments, which we quote:
. . . On the other hand, there is nothing to stop any of the political parties from forming a coalition with another political party in order to fill up the two vacancies resulting from this decision. 15

The statement is merely a suggestion but not an exclusive solution. It is not part of the disposition of the case. It does not contemplate a realignment of political parties, as otherwise this Court would have explicitly said so. What we intimated is merely this: That those entitled to fractional memberships may join their half-memberships to form a full membership and together nominate one from their coalition to the Commission on Appointments. For example, the NPC and the LAKAS-NUCD may join their half-memberships and jointly nominate one of their own Senators to the Commission. In the same way the LDP and the LP-PDP-LABAN may nominate Senator Wigberto Taada to fill up the other slot to complete the membership to twelve. But the latter, as a coalition, may not insist in electing both Senator Taada and Senator Romulo to fill up two slots because this is certainly a violation of the rule on proportional representation. Who decides the question of proportionality? The power to choose who among them will sit as members of the Commission on Appointments belongs to the Senate. The number of senators is fixed by the Constitution to twelve, but the numbers of senators to be chosen must comply with the rule on proportional representation. The question of who interprets what is meant by proportional representation has been a settled rule that it belongs to this Court. The acceptance by the Senate of Senator Tolentino's formula to settle temporarily the impasse concerning the membership in the Commission on Appointments by leaving the final decision to the Supreme Court is a Senate recognition that the determination of proportional representation under Article VI, Section 18 of the Constitution is a function of this Court. Once a controversy as to the application or interpretation of a constitutional provision is raised before this Court, it becomes a legal issue which the Court is bound by Constitutional mandate to decide. The framers of our Constitution, in borrowing from constitutions of other states, thought it wise to vest in the Supreme Court the role in final arbiter in

cases of conflicts in the interpretation of the fundamental law. In this role, the Court serves as a check on the unbridled use of power by the legislative majority to silence the minority. Democracy may breed but it will not sanction tyranny by force of numbers. The election of respondents Senators Taada and Romulo is a clear disregard of the constitutional provision and when done over the objections of their colleagues in the Senate, constitutes a grave abuse of discretion. We quote from our decision:
. . . The election of Senator Romulo and Senator Taada as members of the Commission on Appointments by the LDP Majority in the Senate was clearly a violation of Section 18 Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Their nomination and election by the LDP Majority by sheer force of superiority in numbers during the Senate organization meeting of August 27, 1992 was done in grave abuse of discretion. Where power is exercised in a manner inconsistent with the command of the Constitution, and by reason of numerical strength, knowingly and not merely inadvertently, said exercise amounts to abuse of authority granted by law and grave abuse of discretion is properly found to exist. 16

For lack of merit, the Motions for Reconsideration are DENIED with FINALITY. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ., concur. Gutierrez, Jr., J., is on leave.

Footnotes 1 187 SCRA 377 (1990). 2 180 SCRA 496 (1989). 3 Decision, pp. 6-10; Rollo, pp. 270-274. 4 See Taada vs. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 (1957). 5 Ibid. 6 See Board of Trustees of Lawrence University vs. Outagame County, 136 N.W. 619 (1912); Amos vs. Moseley, 77 So. 619 (1917), 11 AM JUR 700. 7 See Comment to Petition filed by respondents Senate President Neptali A. Gonzales, Senators Alberto Romulo and Wigberto E. Taada, p. 10; Rollo, p. 131. 8 Supra, note 2. 9 TSN, Session of August 27, 1992, Annex "E" of Petition, p. 29; Rollo, p. 111. 10 Supra, note 1. 11 Supra, note 7. 12 Supra, note 1. 13 Supra, note 4. 14 RULES OF THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, Chapter 3, Sec. 10. 15 Decision, p. 12; Rollo, p. 276. 16 Decision, pp. 12-13; Rollo, pp. 276-277.