Bondoc v Pineda

FACTS:

-    Pineda, member of Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) and Bondoc, member of Nacionalista Party (NP) were rival candidates for Representative for 4^TH district of Pampanga.  Pineda was proclaimed winner. Bondoc filed a protest at the House of Rep Electoral Tribunal (HRET)

-         After review, HRET decided that Bondoc won by 107 votes.

-         Cong. Camasura revealed to Cong. Cojuangco (LDP Sec. Gen) that he voted for Bondoc because he was ‘consistent with truth, justice and self-respect’ and that they would abide by the results of the recounted votes where Bondoc was leading.

-         Cong. Camasura was then expelled from his party (LDP) because it was a complete betrayal to his party when he decided for Bondoc.

-         HRET then ordered Camasura to withdraw and rescind his nomination from the tribunal.

-         Bondoc filed for petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to HRET from its resolution.

      ISSUE:  

W/N THE HOUSE OF REP. EMPOWERED TO INTERFERE WITH THE DISPOSITION OF AN ELECTION CONTEST IN THE HRET BY REORGANIZING THE REPRESENTATION IN THE TRIBUNAL OF THE MAJORITY PARTY?

W/N HRET RESOLUTION TO ORDER CAMASURA TO WITHDRAW AND RESCIND HIS NOMINATION IS VALID

HELD: 

NO! COURT SAID THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY POLITICAL PARTY TO CONTROL VOTING IN THE TRIBUNAL . THE TRIBUNAL HAS THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION AS JUDGE TO CONTESTS RELATING TO ELECTION, RETURNS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE MEMS OF THE HOUSE OF REP.

HRET RESOLUTION IS NULL AND VOID.  ACTION OF HRET IS VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE BECAUSE:

1.     IT IS A CLEAR IMPAIRMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVE OF THE HRET TO BE THE SOLE JUDGE OF THE ELECTION CONTEST BET. PINEDA AND BONDOC. TO SANCTION INTERFERENCE BY THE HOUSE OF REP. WOULD REDUCE TRIBUNAL AS TOOL FOR THE AGGRANDIZEMENT OF THE PARTY IN POWER (LDP)

2.     MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL MUST BE NON-PARTISAN. CAMASURA WAS DISCHARGING HIS FUNCTIONS WITH COMPLETE DETACHMENT, IMPARTIALITY AND INDEPENDENCE. DISLOYALTY TO PARTY AND BREACH OF PARTY DISCIPLINE -> NOT VALID GROUND FOR EXPULSION OF MEMBER OF THE TRIBUNAL

3.     IT VIOLATES CAMASURA’S RIGHT TO SECURITY OF TENURE. MEMBERS OF HRET ARE ENTITLED TO SECURITY OF TENURE. MEMBERSHIP MAY NOT BE TERMINATED W/O UNDUE CAUSE SUCH AS: EXPIRATION OF TERM OF OFFICE, DEATH, PERMANENT DISABILITY, RESIGNATION FROM POLITICAL PARTY, FORMAL AFFILIATION WITH ANOTHER PARTY. DISLOYALTY IS NOT A VALID CAUSE!