Facts:
Atty. Romulo Macalintang questions the constitutionality of the creation of the Presidential
Electoral Tribunal (PET). He bases his argument on CONST. Art. VII, Sec. 4 (7), which says:
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may
promulgate its rules for the purpose.
He also questions the constitutionality of designating members of SC as members of the PET. He
says that it contravenes Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution, which says,
The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall
not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
Issue:
W/N the creation the creation of the PET is unconstitutional for violating Art. VII, Sec. 4 (7) of
1987 Constitution (No.)
W/N the designation of the members of SC as members of the PET is unconstitutional for
violating Art. VIII, Sec. 12 of 1987 Constitution (No.)
A plain reading of Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, readily reveals a grant of authority to the
Supreme Court sitting en banc. Although the method by which the Supreme Court exercises this
authority is not specified in the provision, the grant of power does not contain any limitation on the
Supreme Court's exercise thereof. The Supreme Court's method of deciding presidential and vicepresidential election contests, through the PET, is actually a derivative of the exercise of the
prerogative conferred by this provision. This is the reason for the phrase directing SC to "promulgate its
rules for the purpose.
Besides, when the COMELEC, the HRET, and the SET decide election contests, their decisions
are still subject to judicial review via a petition for certiorari filed by the proper party if there is a
showing that the decision was rendered with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.