Nature | Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Nature of Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments

I. Electoral Tribunals

The Constitution of the Philippines establishes the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) as independent constitutional bodies tasked with the resolution of electoral contests involving members of Congress.

A. Constitutional Basis

  1. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET)

    • Established under Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution.
    • Composition: Nine members, consisting of three Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, and six members of the House of Representatives chosen based on proportional representation from the political parties or groups.

  2. Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET)

    • Established under Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution.
    • Composition: Nine members, consisting of three Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, and six Senators chosen based on proportional representation from the political parties or groups.
B. Nature and Jurisdiction

  1. Jurisdiction Over Electoral Contests

    • The Electoral Tribunals (HRET and SET) have exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively.
    • Jurisdiction begins once a member has been proclaimed, taken their oath of office, and assumed their position. This exclusive jurisdiction means that no other body, including the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), courts, or even Congress itself, may resolve electoral contests involving members of Congress.

  2. Quasi-Judicial Function

    • The Electoral Tribunals exercise a quasi-judicial function. Although created as part of the legislative branch, they perform adjudicatory functions similar to those of the judiciary.
    • The tribunals have the power to issue decisions that are binding, final, and executory, subject only to review by the Supreme Court on grounds of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction (Rule 65 of the Rules of Court).

  3. Independence

    • The HRET and SET are designed to be independent of the respective houses they serve to avoid bias and ensure impartiality in resolving electoral contests. Their decisions must be free from any interference by the legislative body.
    • Although members of the Senate and the House of Representatives form part of the tribunals, the balance between legislators and Justices of the Supreme Court ensures impartiality, with judicial members often expected to lead in the determination of legal and procedural issues.
C. Procedure in Electoral Tribunals

  1. Petition

    • An election contest is initiated by filing a petition contesting the election, returns, and qualifications of a member of Congress. The petition must allege specific grounds such as fraud, irregularities in the counting or canvassing, ineligibility of the proclaimed winner, or other electoral violations.

  2. Decision-Making Process

    • Decisions are rendered by a majority vote of all the members of the tribunal.
    • The proceedings are conducted in a judicial manner, observing due process and procedural rules that are similar to those followed in court litigation.

  3. Finality and Review

    • Decisions of the Electoral Tribunals are final and executory, subject to review only by the Supreme Court through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which is a limited review based on grave abuse of discretion.

II. Commission on Appointments

A. Constitutional Basis

The Commission on Appointments (CA) is a constitutional body created under Article VI, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution. It serves as a check on the appointing power of the President, particularly for high-level executive, military, and diplomatic positions.

B. Composition
  1. The Commission on Appointments is composed of 12 Senators and 12 Members of the House of Representatives, elected on the basis of proportional representation from political parties and groups. The Senate President is the ex officio Chairman of the CA but does not vote except in cases of a tie.
  2. The CA is a bicameral body in nature, as it draws members from both houses of Congress, and its composition is determined by political representation within each chamber.
C. Nature and Functions

  1. Confirmatory Power

    • The CA exercises a confirmatory power over certain appointments made by the President. This power ensures that appointments to high-ranking positions undergo legislative scrutiny, promoting checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government.

  2. Scope of Appointments Subject to Confirmation

    • The following appointments by the President are subject to the confirmation of the CA:

      • Heads of executive departments (e.g., Secretaries of National Defense, Foreign Affairs, Finance).
      • Ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls.
      • Officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and higher.
      • Other officers whose appointments are vested in the President by law and are not otherwise provided for by the Constitution.

    • The appointment of judges of the Supreme Court, the Ombudsman, and the heads of constitutional commissions (e.g., Commission on Audit, Civil Service Commission, COMELEC) are not subject to CA confirmation, as these are specifically exempted by the Constitution and are subject to direct appointment by the President.

  3. Quasi-Legislative Function

    • The CA exercises a quasi-legislative function, involving the exercise of discretion in approving or rejecting presidential appointments. The CA does not create laws but functions as a legislative body ensuring that appointments conform to public interest, qualifications, and the national good.

  4. Independence

    • The CA is meant to be an independent body, distinct from the control of the executive branch. It operates to scrutinize appointees impartially, though it is composed of members of Congress who may belong to the same party as the President.

  5. Non-Judicial in Character

    • Unlike the Electoral Tribunals, the CA does not perform a judicial or quasi-judicial function. Its role is to approve or reject appointments based on political and legal considerations, without adjudicating disputes or making binding legal rulings.
D. Procedure in the Commission on Appointments

  1. Nomination and Confirmation

    • Upon the nomination of an appointee by the President, the CA conducts public hearings where the nominee is subject to questioning by members of the commission. The nominee’s qualifications, integrity, and competence are scrutinized.
    • After deliberations, the CA either approves or rejects the nomination through a vote.

  2. Majority Vote

    • A majority of the members present during a session is needed to approve an appointment. A quorum (majority of all the members) must be present for the CA to conduct its proceedings.

  3. Rejection of Appointments

    • If the CA rejects an appointment, the President may appoint another nominee or make an ad interim appointment when Congress is not in session. Such ad interim appointments, however, must still be confirmed by the CA when Congress reconvenes.

  4. Ad Interim Appointments

    • The President may make ad interim appointments during recesses of Congress. These appointments are effective immediately but are subject to confirmation by the CA upon the reconvening of Congress. If the CA rejects the ad interim appointee, they are automatically removed from office.

III. Distinction Between the Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments

  1. Functions

    • The Electoral Tribunals perform a judicial function, specifically resolving electoral contests, while the Commission on Appointments exercises a legislative confirmatory function over certain presidential appointments.

  2. Independence

    • Both bodies are constitutionally independent, but their independence is exercised in different spheres. The electoral tribunals are meant to be independent of the houses they serve to ensure impartial resolution of electoral disputes, while the CA ensures the independence of the appointment process from unchecked executive power.

  3. Composition and Decision-Making

    • The Electoral Tribunals are composed of members from both Congress and the judiciary, ensuring a blend of political and judicial oversight. The CA, on the other hand, is purely a legislative body composed solely of members of Congress, focusing on legislative oversight of the executive.

In conclusion, both the Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments are crucial elements in maintaining the system of checks and balances under the 1987 Constitution. They ensure the legitimacy of elected officials and appointees to public office, safeguarding democratic processes through their distinct but complementary roles.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login