© BONDOC VS.

PINEDA
th
􏰀 Pineda (LDP) vs. Bondoc (Nationalista). They are rival candidates in the 4
district of Pampanga. Pineda won by 3,300 votes and was proclaimed winner.

Bondoc filed a protest before the HRET. The HRET ruled that
Bondoc won by a margin of 23 votes. 


􏰀 The LDP allies of Pineda in the HRET insisted on the recount of

ballots. 


􏰀 Unfortunately, the recount backfired and resulted in the increase

of Bondoc’s lead over Pineda. Bondoc now leads by 107 votes!! 


􏰀 Moved by honesty, Congressman CAMASURA of the LDP, told

his LDP party-mates that because Bondoc really won, he was compelled
to vote against Pineda, consistent with truth and justice. 


􏰀 On the eve of the promulgation of the Bondoc decision, LDP

Chief Jose Cojuangco EXPELLED CAMASURA from the LDP, stating that
his act was inimical, unethical, and immoral, and was a complete betrayal
to the cause and loyalty to LDP. 


􏰀 The following day, a letter was sent to the HRET Chair Justice
Melencio-Herrera informing them that Camasura’s nomination for the
HRET has been withdrawn by LDP, hence they are rescinding
Camasura’s election for the HRET. 


􏰀 Because of this “distressing development” the 3 Justices-

Members (Herrera, Cruz, Feliciano) of the HRET asked that they be
relieved from their assignments at the HRET because they felt that the
unseating of an incumbent member of Congress is being prevented at all
costs. They cite political factors are blocking the accomplishment of the
task of the HRET. The 3 justices are proposing amendments to the
composition of the HRET that is: 3-3-3 (3 members from party with largest
vote, 3 for second largest vote, 3 from the SC). 


􏰀 The SC directed 3 justices to return to the HRET. 


􏰀 The HRET resolved to cancel the promulgation of the Bondoc

ruling. This is because without Camasura’s vote, the decision lacks the
concurrence of 5 members as required by the rules and therefore

cannot be validly promulgated. 


􏰀 Bondoc not being proclaimed, filed a case to annul 
the

decision of the House to withdraw Camasura from the HRET. Bondoc is
seeking the reinstatement of Camasura to the HRET. 

 􏰀 Pineda, on the other hand, prays for the dismissal of the petition.
He argues that Congress is the sole authority to nominate and elect from
its members, and that the House has the sole power to remove any
member of the HRET whenever the ration in representation of political
parties has materially changed. He contends that Camasura’s expulsion
was purely a party affair, a political question in the hands of the House,
and beyond the reach of courts.


ISSUE: Whether Camasura may be taken out of the HRET, when he was
expelled from the LDP?

May the 
house request the dominant party to change the party’s
representation in the HRET? Can the house reorganize representation in
the HRET of the majority party?

SC: The ET was created to function as a NONPARTISAN court even if 2/3 of its
members are politicians. It is a non- political body in the sea of politicians. It was
to be an independent and impartial tribunal for the determination of election
contests. To be able to exercise this exclusive jurisdiction, the ET must be
independent. Its jurisdiction to hear and decide congressional election contests is
not to be share with the Legislature nor the Courts.

The ET is a body separate and independent of the legislature. While composed

of a majority of the members of the legislature, it is an independent body.

The House Resolution removing Camasura from the HRET because he cast a
vote against his party-mate is a clear IMPAIRMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PREPRROGATIVE OF THE HRET TO BE THE SOLE JUGE OF THE
ELECTION CONTEST between Pineda and Bondoc.

The House INTERFERED in the work of the HRET, and in doing so reduced the
HRET into a mere tool for the AGGRANDIZEMENT OF THE PARTY IN POWER
(LDP), which the 3 justices and the lone Nationalista member would be
powerless to stop.

As judges, the members of the tribunal must be non-partisan. They must

discharge their duties in complete detachment and impartiality, even
independence from the political party to which they belong. DISLOYALTY TO
THE PARTY, is not a valid ground for the expulsion of a member of the HRET.
The purpose of his expulsion was to nullify his vote in the Bondoc case so that
the HRET’s decision may not be promulgated, and would clear the way for LDP
to nominate a replacement at the HRET.

Furthermore, Camasura has a RIGHT TO SECURITY OF TENURE. Members of

the HRET, are like members of the judiciary, who enjoy security of tenure.
Membership may not be terminated except for just cause, such as: expiration of
term of office, death, disability, resignation from the political party he represents,
etc. Camasura’s expulsion is therefore null and void. The expulsion of Camasura
by the House from the HRET was unjust interference with the HRET’s disposition
in the Bondoc case, and to deprive Bondoc of the fruits of the HRET’s
decision.
 The HRET’s decision in favor of Bondoc is thereby
PROMULGATED.
 Camasura reinstated to HRET – House decision is annulled.

SECTION 18

There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the

Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve Members of the
House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and 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 thirty session days of the Congress from their
submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members.