1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; PROHIBITION; EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, A CASE OF. — The instant petition may be regarded as one of prohibition wherein the Senate is claimed to have acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction when it designated respondent Senator Romulo as eighth member of the Commission on Appointments, upon nomination by the LDP, and respondent Senator Tañada as LP nominee, notwithstanding, that in both instances, LDP and LP are each entitled only to "half a member" .

2. ID.; ID.; MANDAMUS; UNLAWFUL EXCLUSION FROM THE ENJOYMENT OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE, A CASE OF. — In the alternative, the petition may be regarded as one for mandamus, in which it is claimed that the LAKAS-NUCD and NPC were unlawfully excluded from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which each is entitled.

3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SECTION 18 OF ARTICLE VI THEREOF; COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS; RULE ON PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES; CASE AT BAR A VIOLATION OF. — It is an established fact to which all the parties agree that the mathematical representation of each of the political parties represented in the Senate is as follows: LDP — 7.5 LP-PDP-LABAN — .5 NPC — 2.5 LAKAS-NUCD — 1.5 It is also a fact accepted by all such parties that each of them is entitled to a fractional membership on the basis of the rule on proportional representation of each of the political parties. A literal interpretation of Section 18 of Article VI of the Constitution leads to no other manner of application than as above. The problem is what to do with the fraction of .5 or 1/2 to which each of the parties is entitled. The LDP majority in the Senate converted a fractional half membership into a whole membership of one senator by adding one half or .5 to 7.5 to be able to elect Senator Romulo. In so doing one other party’s fractional membership was correspondingly reduced leaving the latter’s representation in the Commission on Appointments to less than their proportional representation in the Senate. This is clearly a violation of Section 18 because it is no longer in compliance with its mandate that membership in the Commission be based on the proportional representation of the political parties. The election of Senator Romulo gave more representation to the LDP and reduced the representation of one political party — either the LAKAS — NUCD or the NPC.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; COMPLIANCE THEREWITH IS MANDATORY; REASON. — The provision of Section 18 on proportional representation is mandatory in character and does not leave any discretion to the majority party in the Senate to disobey or disregard the rule on proportional representation; otherwise, the party with a majority representation in the Senate or the House of Representatives can by sheer force of numbers impose its will on the hapless minority. By requiring a proportional representation in the Commission on Appointments, Section 18 in effect works as a check on the majority party in the Senate and helps to maintain the balance of power. No party can claim more than what it is entitled to under such rule. To allow it to elect more than its proportional share of members is to confer upon such a party a greater share in the membership in the Commission on Appointments and more power to impose its will on the minority, who by the same token, suffers a diminution of its rightful membership in the Commission.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; NECESSITY OF AT LEAST TWO SENATORS IN THE SENATE FOR A POLITICAL PARTY TO HAVE A SEAT IN THE COMMISSION; CASE AT BAR. — Section 18 also assures representation in the Commission on Appointments of any political party who succeeds in electing members to the Senate, provided that the number of senators so elected enables it to put a representative in the Commission on Appointments. Drawing from the ruling in the case of Coseteng v. Mitra, Jr., a political party must have at least two senators in the Senate to be able to have a representative in the Commission on Appointments, so that any number less than 2 will not entitle such a party a membership in the Commission on Appointments. This applies to the respondent Senator Tañada.

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; NECESSITY OF A QUORUM FOR THE COMMISSION TO PERFORM ITS FUNCTIONS. — Under Section 18, the Commission shall rule by majority vote of all the members and in Section 10, the Commission shall meet only while Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its members "to discharge such powers and functions herein conferred upon it." It is quite evident that the Constitution does not require the election and presence of twelve (12) senators and twelve (12) members of the House of Representatives in order that the Commission may function. Other instances may be mentioned of Constitutional collegial bodies which perform their functions even if not fully constituted and even if their composition is expressly specified by the Constitution. Among these are the Supreme Court, Civil Service Commission, Commission on Election, Commission on Audit. They perform their functions so long as there is the required quorum, usually a majority of its membership. The Commission on Appointments may perform its functions and transact its business even if only ten (10) senators are elected thereto as long as a quorum exists.

7. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; PROHIBITION; GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION; PRESENT WHERE POWER IS KNOWINGLY EXERCISED IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION; CASE AT BAR. — Assuming that the Constitution intended that there be always twelve (12) senators in the Commission on Appointments, the instant situation cannot be rectified by the Senate in disregard of the rule on proportional representation. The election of Senator Romulo and Senator Tañada as members of the Commission on Appointments by the LDP majority in the Senate was clearly a violation of Section 18 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Their nomination and election by the LDP majority by sheer force of superiority in numbers during the Senate organization meeting of August 27, 1992 was done in grave abuse of discretion. Where power is exercised in a manner inconsistent with the command of the Constitution, and by reason of numerical strength, knowingly and not merely inadvertently, said exercise amounts to abuse of authority granted by law and grave abuse of discretion is properly found to exist.

This is a petition for Prohibition to prohibit, respondents Senators Alberto Romulo and Wigberto Tañada from sitting and assuming the position of members of the Commission on Appointments and to prohibit Senators Neptali Gonzales, as ex-officio Chairman, of said Commission from recognizing and allowing the respondent senators to sit as members thereof.

As a result of the national elections held last May 11, 1992, the Senate is composed of the following members or Senators representing the respective political affiliations:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

LDP — 15 senators

NPC — 5 senators

LAKAS-NUCD — 3 senators

LP-PDP-LABAN — 1 senator 1

Applying the mathematical formula agreed to by the parties as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

No. of senators of a political party x 12 seats

___________________________

Total No. of senators elected.

the resulting composition of the senate based on the rule of proportional representation of each political party with elected representatives in the Senate, is as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Political Party/ Proportional

Political Coalition Membership Representatives

LDP 15 7.5 members

NPC 5 2.5 members

LAKAS-NUCD 3 1.5 members

LP-PDP-LABAN 1 .5 members

At the organization meeting of the Senate held on August 27, 1992, Senator Romulo in his capacity as Majority Floor Leader nominated, for and in behalf of the LDP, eight (8) senators for membership in the Commission on Appointments, namely, Senators Angara, Herrera, Alvarez, Aquino, Mercado, Ople, Sotto and Romulo. The nomination of the eighth senator 2 was objected to by Petitioner, Senator Guingona, as Minority Floor Leader, and Senator John Osmeña, in representation of the NPC. To resolve the impasse, Senator Arturo Tolentino proposed a compromise to the effect that the Senate elect 3

". . . 12 members to the Commission on Appointments, eight coming from LDP, two coming from NPC, one coming from the Liberal Party, with the understanding that there are strong reservations against this proportion or these numbers so that if later on in an action in the Supreme Court, if any party is found to have an excess in representation, that the party will necessarily reduce its representation, and if any party is found to have a deficiency in representation, that party will be entitled to nominate and have elected by this body its additional representative."cralaw virtua1aw library

The proposed compromise above stated was a temporary arrangement and, inspite of the objections of Senators Guingona and Osmeña, to enable the Commission on Appointments to be organized by the election of its members, it was approved. The elected members consisted of eight LDP, one LP-PDP-LABAN, two NPC and one LAKAS-NUCD.

On September 23, 1992, Senator Teofisto Guingona, Jr., in his behalf and in behalf of Lakas-National Union of Christian Democrats (LAKAS-NUCD), filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of prohibition to prohibit the respondent Senate President Neptali Gonzales, as ex-officio Chairman of the Commission on Appointments, from recognizing the membership of Senators Alberto Romulo as the eighth senator elected by the LDP, and Wigberto L. Tañada, as the lone member representing the LP-PDP-LABAN, in the Commission on Appointments, on the ground that the proposed compromise of Senator Tolentino was violative of the rule of proportional representation, and that it is the right of the minority political parties in the Senate, consistent with the Constitution, 4 to combine their fractional representation in the Commission on Appointments to complete one seat therein, and to decide who, among the senators in their ranks, shall be additionally nominated and elected thereto.

Section 18 of Article VI of the Constitution of 1987 provides for the creation of a Commission on Appointments and the allocation of its membership, as follows:chanrobles law library : red

SECTION 18. There shall be a Commission of 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 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 of all the members. (Emphasis supplied.)

Based on the mathematical computation of proportional representation of the various political parties with elected senator in the Senate, each of these political parties is entitled to a fractional membership in the Commission on Appointments as stated in the first paragraph of this decision. 5 Each political party has a claim to an extra half seat, and the election of respondents Senator Romulo and Senator Tañada to the Commission on Appointments by the LDP majority is precisely questioned by the petitioners because, according to them, it unduly increased the membership of LDP and LP-PDP-LABAN in the Commission and reduced the membership of the LAKAS-NUCD and NPC correspondingly. In view of the conflicting claims of each of the political parties/coalition duly represented in the Senate to a fractional membership in the Commission on Appointments, the election of respondents Senator Romulo and Senator Tañada has become controversial and its validity questionable. Hence, this petition. It has been established that the legality of filling up the membership of the Commission on Appointments is a justiceiable issue and not a political question. 6

We deem it necessary to resolve the respondents’ argument as to the nature of the instant petition. There is no doubt that the issues involved herein are constitutional in nature and are of vital importance to our nation. They involve the interpretation of Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution which creates a Commission on Appointments. Where constitutional issues are properly raised in the context of the alleged facts, procedural questions acquire a relatively minor significance, 7 and the "transcendental importance to the public of the case demands that they be settled promptly and definitely brushing aside . . . technicalities of procedure." 8

For the purpose of resolving the case at bar, the instant petition may be regarded as one of prohibition 9 wherein the Senate is claimed to have acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction when it designated respondent Senator Romulo as eighth member of the Commission on Appointments, upon nomination by the LDP, and respondent Senator Tañada as LP nominee, notwithstanding, that in both instances, LDP and LP are each entitled only to "half a member." In the alternative, the petition may be regarded as one for mandamus, 10 in which it is claimed that the LAKAS-NUCD and NPC were unlawfully excluded from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which each is entitled. Considering the importance of the case at bar and in keeping with the Court’s duty under the Constitution to keep the other branches of the government within the limits of the Constitution and the laws of the land, this Court has decided to brush aside legal technicalities of procedure and take cognizance of this case.

The issues for determination by this Court may be stated as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) Whether the election of Senators Alberto Romulo and Wigberto E. Tañada as members of the Commission on Appointments is in accordance with the provision of Section 18 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

2) If said membership of the respondent senators in the Commission is violative of the Constitutional provision, did the respondent Senate act in grave abuse of discretion in electing the respondent Senators?

3) If there was grave abuse of discretion by respondent Senate, acting through the LDP majority, should a writ of prohibition enjoining, prohibiting and restraining the respondent Senators from sitting as members of and participating in the proceedings of the Commission on Appointments be issued?

It is an established fact to which all the parties agree that the mathematical representation of each of the political parties represented in the Senate is as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

LDP — 7.5

LP-PDP-LABAN — .5

NPC — 2.5

LAKAS-NUCD — 1.5

It is also a fact accepted by all such parties that each of them is entitled to a fractional membership on the basis of the rule on proportional representation of each of the political parties. A literal interpretation of Section 18 of Article VI of the Constitution leads to no other manner of application than as above. The problem is what to do with the fraction of .5 or 1/2 to which each of the parties is entitled. The LDP majority in the Senate converted a fractional half membership into a whole membership of one senator by adding one half or .5 to 7.5 to be able to elect Senator Romulo. In so doing one other party’s fractional membership was correspondingly reduced leaving the latter’s representation in the Commission on Appointments to less than their proportional representation in the Senate. This is clearly a violation of Section 18 because it is no longer in compliance with its mandate that membership in the Commission be based on the proportional representation of the political parties. The election of Senator Romulo gave more representation to the LDP and reduced the representation of one political party — either the LAKAS — NUCD or the NPC.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

On the claim of Senator Tañada that under the ruling in the case of Senator Lorenzo Tañada, 11 and the case of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, he has a right to be elected as a member of the Commission on Appointments because of: (a) the physical impossibility of dividing a person, so that the fractional membership must be rounded up into one senator, (b) being the sole elected senator of his party, his party is entitled to be represented in the Commission on Appointments; (c) having been elected senator, rounding up into one full senator his fractional membership is consistent with the provision and spirit of the Constitution and would be in full accord, with the principle of republicanism that emphasizes democracy.

The cases of the two former senators mentioned cannot be invoked as a precedent in support of incumbent Senator Tañada’s claim to a membership in the present Commission on Appointments. In the time of his illustrious father, out of 24 elected senators in the upper chamber of Congress, 23 belonged to the Nacionalista Party, while Senator Lorenzo Tañada, who belonged to the Citizens’ Party, was the lone opposition. By force of circumstance, he became a member of the Commission on Appointments because he alone represented the minority party. Had there been another senator belonging to a party other than the Citizens’ Party, this problem of who should sit as the sole representative of the opposition party would have arisen. In the case of Senator Ponce Enrile, there were two senators elected from the opposition party, namely, he and Senator Estrada. Applying the rule of proportional representation mentioned earlier (see formula), the opposition was entitled to one full member (not a fractional membership). Senator Enrile was thus legally nominated and elected as the minority representative in the Senate. In the present case, if there were a political party other than the present four political parties is the Senate. and We follow Senator Tañada’s claim that he is entitled to full membership as lone representative of his party, We would have the anomaly of having 13 senators, where the Constitution allows only twelve (12) in the Commission on Appointments.

We find the respondents’ claim to membership in the Commission on Appointments by nomination and election of the LDP majority in the Senate as not in accordance with Section 18 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and therefore violative of the same because it is not in compliance with the requirement that twelve senators shall be elected on the basis of proportional representation of the political parties represented therein. To disturb the resulting fractional membership of the political parties in the Commission on Appointments by adding together two halves to make a whole is a breach of the rule on proportional representation because it will give the LDP an added member in the Commission by utilizing the fractional membership of the minority political party, who is deprived of half a representation.

The provision of Section 18 on proportional representation is mandatory in character and does not leave any discretion to the majority party in the Senate to disobey or disregard the rule on proportional representation; otherwise, the party with a majority representation in the Senate or the House of Representatives can by sheer force of numbers impose its will on the hapless minority. By requiring a proportional representation in the Commission on Appointments, Section 18 in effect works as a check on the majority party in the Senate and helps to maintain the balance of power. No party can claim more than what it is entitled to under such rule. To allow it to elect more than its proportional share of members is to confer upon such a party a greater share in the membership in the Commission on Appointments and more power to impose its will on the minority, who by the same token, suffers a diminution of its rightful membership in the Commission.

Section 18 also assures representation in the Commission on Appointments of any political party who succeeds in electing members to the Senate, provided that the number of senators so elected enables it to put a representative in the Commission on Appointments. Drawing from the ruling in the case of Coseteng v. Mitra, Jr., 12 a political party must have at least two senators in the Senate to be able to have a representative in the Commission on Appointments, so that any number less than 2 will not entitle such a party a membership in the Commission on Appointments. This applies to the respondent Senator Tañada.chanrobles law library

We lay down the following guidelines accordingly:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) In the Senate, a political party or coalition must have at least two duly elected senators for every seat in the Commission on Appointments.

2) Where there are more than two political parties represented in the Senate, a political party/coalition with a single senator in the Senate cannot constitutionally claim a seat in the Commission.

We do not agree with respondents’ claim that it is mandatory to elect 12 Senators to the Commission on Appointments. The Constitution does not contemplate that the Commission on Appointments must necessarily include twelve (12) senators and twelve (12) members of the House of Representatives. What the Constitution requires is that there be at least a majority of the entire membership. Under Section 18, the Commission shall rule by majority vote of all the members and in Section 19, the Commission shall meet only while Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its members "to discharge such powers and functions herein conferred upon it." Implementing the above provisions of the Constitution, Section 10, Chapter 3 of the Rules of the Commission on Appointments, provides as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SECTION 10. — Place of Meeting and Quorum: The Commission shall meet at either the session hall of the Senate or the House of Representatives upon call of the Chairman or as the Commission may designate. The presence of at least thirteen (13) members is necessary to constitute a quorum. Provided, however, that at least four (4) of the members constituting the quorum should come from either house . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is quite evident that the Constitution does not require the election and presence of twelve (12) senators and twelve (12) members of the House of Representatives in order that the Commission may function. Other instances may be mentioned of Constitutional collegial bodies which perform their functions even if not fully constituted and even if their composition is expressly specified by the Constitution. Among these are the Supreme Court, 13 Civil Service Commission, 14 Commission on Election, 15 Commission on Audit. 16 They perform their functions so long as there is the required quorum, usually a majority of its membership. The Commission on Appointments may perform its functions and transact its business even if only ten (10) senators are elected thereto as long as a quorum exists.

It may also be mentioned that while the Constitution provides for equal membership from the Senate and the House of Representatives in the Commission on Appointments, the senators on the one hand, and the representatives, on the other, do not vote separately but jointly, and usually along party lines. Even if Senator Tañada would not be able to sit in the Commission on Appointments, the LP-LDP-LABAN would still be represented in the Commission by Congressman Ponce Enrile who has become a member of the LP. On the other hand, there is nothing to stop any of the political parties from forming a coalition with another political party in order to fill up the two vacancies resulting from this decision.

Assuming that the Constitution intended that there be always twelve (12) senators in the Commission on Appointments, the instant situation cannot be rectified by the Senate in disregard of the rule on proportional representation. The election of Senator Romulo and Senator Tañada as members of the Commission on Appointments by the LDP majority in the Senate was clearly a violation of Section 18 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Their nomination and election by the LDP majority by sheer force of superiority in numbers during the Senate organization meeting of August 27, 1992 was done in grave abuse of discretion. Where power is exercised in a manner inconsistent with the command of the Constitution, and by reason of numerical strength, knowingly and not merely inadvertently, said exercise amounts to abuse of authority granted by law and grave abuse of discretion is properly found to exist.

In the light of the foregoing and on the basis of the applicable rules and jurisprudence on the matter before this Court, We declare the election of Senator Alberto Romulo and Senator Wigberto Tañada as members of the Commission on Appointments as null and void for being in violation of the rule on proportional representation under Section 18 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. Accordingly, a writ of prohibition is hereby issued ordering the said respondents Senator Romulo and Senator Tañada to desist from assuming, occupying and discharging the functions of members of the Commission on Appointments; and ordering the respondent Senate President Neptali Gonzales, in his capacity as ex-officio Chairman of the Commission on Appointments, to desist from recognizing the membership of the respondent Senators and from allowing and permitting them from sitting and participating as members of said Commission.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo and Melo, JJ., concur.

Medialdea, J., is on leave.

Davide, Jr., J., concurs in the result.

Endnotes:

---

1. Includes Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr.

2. Senator Alberto Romulo.

3. T.S.N., Session of August 27, 1992, p. 29 as Annex to Petition.

4. Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution.

5. See page 2 of the Decision.

6. Coseteng v. Mitra, Jr., 187 SCRA 377 (1990).

7. Daza v. Singson, 180 SCRA 496 (1989).

8. Osmeña v. Commission on Elections, 199 SCRA 750 (1991).

9. Section 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

10. Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

11. Tañada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 (1957).

12. Supra, note 6.

13. Section 4, Article VIII.

14. Section 1 (1), Article IX-A.

15. Section 1 (1), Article IX-C.

16. Section 1 (1), Article IX-D.