BONDOC V PINEDA

FACTS:
Emigdio Bondoc and Marciano Pineda were rivals for a Congressional
seat in the 4th District of Pampanga. Pineda was a member of the
Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP). While Bondoc was a member
of the Nacionalista Party (NP). Pineda won in that election. However,
Bondoc contested the result in the HRET (House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal). Bondoc won in the protest and he was subsequently
declared as the winner by the HRET.
Meanwhile, one member of the HRET, Congressman Juanito Camasura,
Jr. who was a member of LDP confessed to Rep. Jose Cojuangco (LDPs
leader) that he voted for Bondoc even though Bondoc was a member
of the NP. He confessed that he believed in his conscience that Bondoc
truly won the election. This resulted to Camasuras expulsion from the
LDP. Pineda then moved that they withdraw Camasura from the HRET.
They further prayed that a new election be held and that the new LDP
representative be appointed in the HRET. This new representative will
be voting for Pineda in the reopening of the election contest. Camasura
was then removed by HRETs chairwoman Justice Ameurfina Herrera.
Naturally, Bondoc questioned such action before the Supreme Court
(SC).
Pineda contends that the issue is already outside the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court because Camasuras removal is an official act of
Congress and by virtue of the doctrine of separation of powers, the
judiciary may not interfere.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Supreme Court may inquire upon the validity of the
said act of the HRET without violating the doctrine of separation of
powers.
HELD:
Yes. The SC can settle the controversy in the case at bar without
encroaching upon the function of the legislature particularly a part
thereof, HRET. The issue here is a judicial question. It must be noted
that what is being complained of is the act of HRET not the act of
Congress. In here, when Camasura was rescinded by the tribunal, a
decision has already been made, members of the tribunal have already
voted regarding the electoral contest involving Pineda and Bondoc
wherein Bondoc won. The LDP cannot withdraw their representative
from the HRET after the tribunal has already reached a decision. They
cannot hold the same election since the issue has already become
moot and academic. LDP is merely changing their representative to

change the outcome of the election. Camasura should be reinstated

because his removal was not due to a lawful or valid cause. Disloyalty
to party is not a valid cause for termination of membership in the
HRET. Expulsion of Camasura violates his right to security of tenure.
**HRET is composed of 9 members. 3 members coming from the SC. 5
coming from the majority party (LDP). And 1 coming from the minority.
Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Sec. 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 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.