INTERPELLATION

1. Rule 9, Sec 5 of the Internal Rules of Procedures of the SC grant the SC the power to
consolidate cases, correct?
2. This power to consolidate is at first hand, discretionary, yes?
3. Are you aware that there is a certain situation where the discretionary power to
consolidate of the SC calls for mandatory application as held in the case of Fabiana vs
Justice Reyes?
4. Do you know that this situation, as ruled in Canos vs Peralta is when all of the
requisites of a valid consolidation are met by the cases to be consolidated?
5. The first requisite calls for a common issue on the cases to be consolidated, yes?
6. In the words of Canos vs Peralta, do you recognize that it is not important that ALL
issues be similar so long as ONE issue is common?
7. In the COMELEC and SET cases concerning Sen. Poe, do you admit that stripped
down to their core, the issues call for a determination of Sen. Poe’s nationality?
8. The second requisite is commonality of facts, correct?
9. Have you read the full text of the COMELEC and SET petitions?
10. Do you recognize that the a notably similar set of facts are stated in both SeT and
COMELEC petitions?
11. The third requisite is commonality of party, yes?
12. Do you recognize that as per SC’s words in Canos vs Peralta, not ALL parties must
be common so long as there is at least ONE common party to the cases to be
consolidated?
13. Do you admit the very obvious fact that Sen. Poe is the common party to both
COMELEC and SET petitions?
14. Do you now concede to this august body that all of the requisites in Canos vs
Peralta are met by the SET and COMELEC petitions concerning Sen. Poe?
15. Do you now accept the SET and COMELEC petitions be consolidated following the
ruling in Fabiana vs Justice Reyes?

16. The SET case is quo warranto in nature, yes?

17. The COMELEC case id a petition to annul COC, correct?
18. Do you believe that these cases are of different nature?
19. Do you acknowledge that the SC in Dominador Jalosjos vs COMELEC, ruled that
quo warranto and petition to annul COC are essentially the same and should be
consolidated by the Courts?
20. Do you acknowledge that the SET and COMELEC cases come from different
tribunals?
21. Are you aware that different tribunals of origin is not material in consolidation of
cases?
22. Do you accept that in Romeo Jalosjos vs COMELEC, the SC ruled that irrespective
of tribunals of origin, cases should be consolidated as long as the requisites we
discussed before in Canos vs Peralta are met?
23. Do you now accept before this honorable body that the cases concerning Sen. Poe
be consolidated following the SC’s decisions in jurisprudence?