Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 325 views

    Bondoc Vs Pineda

    Uploaded by

    VanityHugh
    The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) had decided in favor of Bondoc over Pineda in an election contest. However, on the eve of announcing the decision, the dominant political party in the House expelled one of its nominees to the HRET, Congressman Camasura, for voting with the opposition. In response, Bondoc filed a petition challenging the House's removal of Camasura. The Supreme Court ruled that the House committed an abuse of discretion and violated the constitution by removing Camasura for a "conscience vote" contrary to his party. Members of the HRET are intended to be impartial judges and cannot be removed for party disloyalty alone. The Court therefore granted Bondoc's

    Copyright:

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

    Bondoc Vs Pineda

    Uploaded by

    VanityHugh
    325 views2 pages
    The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) had decided in favor of Bondoc over Pineda in an election contest. However, on the eve of announcing the decision, the dominant political party in the House expelled one of its nominees to the HRET, Congressman Camasura, for voting with the opposition. In response, Bondoc filed a petition challenging the House's removal of Camasura. The Supreme Court ruled that the House committed an abuse of discretion and violated the constitution by removing Camasura for a "conscience vote" contrary to his party. Members of the HRET are intended to be impartial judges and cannot be removed for party disloyalty alone. The Court therefore granted Bondoc's

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    251.-Bondoc-vs-Pineda

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) had decided in favor of Bondoc over Pineda in an election contest. However, on the eve of announcing the decision, the dominant political party in the House expelled one of its nominees to the HRET, Congressman Camasura, for voting with the opposition. In response, Bondoc filed a petition challenging the House's removal of Camasura. The Supreme Court ruled that the House committed an abuse of discretion and violated the constitution by removing Camasura for a "conscience vote" contrary to his party. Members of the HRET are intended to be impartial judges and cannot be removed for party disloyalty alone. The Court therefore granted Bondoc's

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    325 views2 pages

    Bondoc Vs Pineda

    Uploaded by

    VanityHugh
    The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) had decided in favor of Bondoc over Pineda in an election contest. However, on the eve of announcing the decision, the dominant political party in the House expelled one of its nominees to the HRET, Congressman Camasura, for voting with the opposition. In response, Bondoc filed a petition challenging the House's removal of Camasura. The Supreme Court ruled that the House committed an abuse of discretion and violated the constitution by removing Camasura for a "conscience vote" contrary to his party. Members of the HRET are intended to be impartial judges and cannot be removed for party disloyalty alone. The Court therefore granted Bondoc's

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    No.

    251
    EN BANC
    [G.R. No. 97710 September 26, 1991]
    DR. EMIGDIO A. BONDOC, petitioner, vs. REPRESENTATIVES MARCIANO
    M. PINEDA, MAGDALENO M. PALACOL, COL. JUANITO G. CAMASURA,
    JR., or any other representative who may be appointed vice representative
    Juanita G. Camasura, Jr., and THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, respondents.

    Facts:

     In the elections held on May 11, 1987, Marciano Pineda of the LDP and
    Emigdio Bondoc of the NP were candidates for the position of
    Representative for the Fourth District of Pampanga. Pineda was
    proclaimed winner.
     Bondoc filed a protest in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
    (HRET), which is composed of 9 members, 3 of whom are Justices of the
    SC and the remaining 6 are members of the House of Representatives (5
    members belong to the LDP and 1 member is from the NP).
     Thereafter, a decision had been reached in which Bondoc won over
    Pineda. Congressman Camasura of the LDP voted with the SC Justices
    and Congressman Cerilles of the NP to proclaim Bondoc the winner of the
    contest.
     On the eve of the promulgation of the Bondoc decision, Congressman
    Camasura received a letter informing him that he was already expelled
    from the LDP for allegedly helping to organize the Partido Pilipino of
    Eduardo Cojuangco and for allegedly inviting LDP members in Davao Del
    Sur to join said political party.
     On the day of the promulgation of the decision, the Chairman of HRET
    received a letter informing the Tribunal that on the basis of the letter from
    the LDP, the House of Representatives decided to withdraw the
    nomination and rescind the election of Congressman Camasura to the
    HRET.
     Bondoc file for petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to HRET
    from his resolution.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the House of Representatives, at the request of the dominant
    political party therein, may change that party’s representation in the HRET to
    thwart the promulgation of a decision freely reached by the tribunal in an
    election contest pending therein.

    Ruling:

    The purpose of the constitutional convention creating the Electoral


    Commission was to provide an independent and impartial tribunal for the
    determination of contests to legislative office, devoid of partisan consideration.

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


    discharge their functions with complete detachment, impartiality and
    No. 251
    independence even independence from the political party to which they
    belong. Hence, disloyalty to party and breach of party discipline are not valid
    grounds for the expulsion of a member of the tribunal. In expelling
    Congressman Camasura from the HRET for having cast a “conscience vote”
    in favor of Bondoc, based strictly on the result of the examination and
    appreciation of the ballots and the recount of the votes by the tribunal, the
    House of Representatives committed a grave abuse of discretion, an injustice
    and a violation of the Constitution. Its resolution of expulsion against
    Congressman Camasura is, therefore, null and void.

    Another reason for the nullity of the expulsion resolution of the House of
    Representatives is that it violates Congressman Camasura’s right to security
    of tenure. Members of the HRET, as sole judge of congressional election
    contests, are entitled to security of tenure just as members of the Judiciary
    enjoy security of tenure under the Constitution. Therefore, membership in the
    HRET may not be terminated except for a just cause, such as, the expiration
    of the member’s congressional term of office, his death, permanent disability,
    resignation from the political party he represents in the tribunal, formal
    affiliation with another political party or removal for other valid cause. A
    member may not be expelled by the House of Representatives for party
    disloyalty, short of proof that he has formally affiliated with another.

    CONCLUSION: the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is granted, with costs
    against respondent Marciano A. Pineda.

    You might also like