Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 187 views

    Daza Vs Luis Singson

    Uploaded by

    Jomar Teneza
    This case involves a dispute over the composition of the Commission on Appointments (CoA) following a political realignment in the House of Representatives. Raul Daza, a member of the Liberal Party, was originally chosen to be part of the CoA but was replaced by Luis Singson after 24 Liberal Party members transferred to the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) party. Daza questioned this replacement. The Supreme Court ruled that the House has the authority to ensure proportional representation of political parties in the CoA, and may make changes following a political realignment. Since the LDP had been in existence for over a year and commanded a large following, it was deemed a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Daza Vs Luis Singson

    Uploaded by

    Jomar Teneza
    187 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over the composition of the Commission on Appointments (CoA) following a political realignment in the House of Representatives. Raul Daza, a member of the Liberal Party, was originally chosen to be part of the CoA but was replaced by Luis Singson after 24 Liberal Party members transferred to the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) party. Daza questioned this replacement. The Supreme Court ruled that the House has the authority to ensure proportional representation of political parties in the CoA, and may make changes following a political realignment. Since the LDP had been in existence for over a year and commanded a large following, it was deemed a

    Original Description:

    daza vs singson

    Original Title

    Daza vs Luis Singson

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over the composition of the Commission on Appointments (CoA) following a political realignment in the House of Representatives. Raul Daza, a member of the Liberal Party, was originally chosen to be part of the CoA but was replaced by Luis Singson after 24 Liberal Party members transferred to the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) party. Daza questioned this replacement. The Supreme Court ruled that the House has the authority to ensure proportional representation of political parties in the CoA, and may make changes following a political realignment. Since the LDP had been in existence for over a year and commanded a large following, it was deemed a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    187 views1 page

    Daza Vs Luis Singson

    Uploaded by

    Jomar Teneza
    This case involves a dispute over the composition of the Commission on Appointments (CoA) following a political realignment in the House of Representatives. Raul Daza, a member of the Liberal Party, was originally chosen to be part of the CoA but was replaced by Luis Singson after 24 Liberal Party members transferred to the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) party. Daza questioned this replacement. The Supreme Court ruled that the House has the authority to ensure proportional representation of political parties in the CoA, and may make changes following a political realignment. Since the LDP had been in existence for over a year and commanded a large following, it was deemed a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Raul Daza vs Luis Singson

    Tribunal and its Composition

    The Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) was reorganized resulting to a political realignment in the
    lower house. LDP also changed its representation in the Commission on Appointments. They withdrew the
    seat occupied by Daza (LDP member) and gave it to the new LDP member. Thereafter the chamber elected
    a new set of representatives in the CoA which consisted of the original members except Daza who was
    replaced by Singson. Daza questioned such replacement.

    ISSUE: Whether or not a change resulting from a political realignment validly changes the composition of
    the Commission on Appointments.

    HELD: As provided in the constitution, there should be a Commission on Appointments consisting of


    twelve Senators and twelve members of the House of Representatives elected by each House respectively
    on the basis of proportional representation of the political parties therein, this necessarily connotes the
    authority of each house of Congress to see to it that the requirement is duly complied with. Therefore, it
    may take appropriate measures, not only upon the initial organization of the Commission but also
    subsequently thereto NOT the court.

    Daza V. Singson
    Case
    Daza was chosen to be part of the Commission of Appointments and was listed as representative of the
    Liberal Party. LDP was reorganized and 24 members from the Liberal Party transferred to LDP. Because
    of this, the House of Representatives revised its representation by withdrawing the seat given to Daza and
    giving it to the newly-formed LDP. Singson was chosen to replace Daza, in accordance to proportional
    representation.
    Issues
    1. Whether the reorganized LDP can be deemed a stable political party

    2. Whether it is necessary for the party to be registered to be entitled to proportional representation


    in the CA

    Held and Ratio


    Both petitioner and respondent invoke the case of Cunanan v. Tan. In the said case, 25 Members of the
    Nacionalista Party reorganized themselves and formed the Allied Majority. 3 Nacionalista Congressmen,
    originally chosen, were deprived of their seats by colleagues who joined the Allied Majority. Carlos
    Cunanans ad interim appointment was rejected by the CA. Jorge Tan was designated in his place.
    Cunanan contended the validity of the rejection. The Court agreed that Allied Majority was merely a
    temporary combination; officially, they were still part of the Nacionalista Party. Thus, the reorganization
    of the CA at that time was not based on proportional representation. The Court held that mere shift of
    votes should not affect the organization of the CA, or else, it would forever be at the mercy of the House
    of Representatives.
    The petitioner argues that LDP is not a permanent party and has not yet achieved stability. However, the
    LDP has already been in existence for a year. They command the biggest following. They not only
    survived but prevailed.
    Regarding being a duly registered party, the LDP was granted its registration as a political party by the
    COMELEC. Thus, shattering the argument of the petitioner that registration is required.

    Page 1 of 1

    You might also like