Daza v. Singson

TOPICS: Political Question and Justiciable Question; Proportional representation from the political parties to the Commission on Appointments 

FACTS:

Petitioner Daza was a representative of the Liberal Party in the Commission on Appointments. When the 24 members of the Liberal Party resigned and joined the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), the members of LDP increased to 159, while the Liberal Party was left with 17 members. 

In effect, the HoR revised its representation in the Commission on Appointment by withdrawing the seat occupied by Daza and gave it to Luis Singson from the newly-formed LDP. 

Article VI, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the 12 members of the HoR in the Commission on Appointment shall be elected on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties. 

Daza argued that the reorganization of the House representation in the Commission on Appointment is not based on a permanent political realignment as the LDP is not a duly registered political party and has not yet attained political stability. 

Singson also argued that the question raised was political in nature, that is beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Further, Singson argued that the transfer of the 24 members to the LDP was permanent. 

ISSUE:

I. WON the issue is a political question.

II. WON the Constitution contemplates that the members from the Commission on Appointments should come from a political party that has “aged” enough

III. WON the HoR can change its representation in the Commission on Appointments to reflect at any time the changes that may transpire in the political alignments of its membership. 

RULING:

I.

No, the issue involves a justiciable question.  

Under the law, a justiciable question is one that involves the legality and not the wisdom of an act complained of. 

In this case, the question involves the manner of filling the Commission on Appointment as prescribed by the Constitution. Assuming arguendo that it was a political question, it is still within the power of review of the Court under the expanded jurisdiction in Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution.

Therefore, the SC acquires jurisdiction over the case. 

II.

No. The requirement that a political party should pass the test of time to prove its permanence is not acceptable.

The Liberal Party, a faction from the Nacionalista Party, was created in 1945 to support Manuel Roxas’s bid for the Presidency. It was 4 months old then but no question was raised as to its representation in the Commission on Appointments and in the Electoral Tribunal. It was the majority party in both chambers of the Congress.

In this case, the LDP has been in existence for more than 1 year. 

Therefore, the Constitution does not contemplate that a political party should pass the test of time to prove its permanence as basis for its representation in the Commission on Appointment. 

III.

Yes, the HoR has the authority to change its representation in the Commission on Appointments to reflect at any time the changes that may transpire in the political alignments of its membership.

It is understood that such changes must be [1] permanent and do not include the temporary alliances or factional divisions not involving severance of political loyalties or [2] formal disaffiliation and [3] permanent shifts of allegiance from one political party to another. 

The Court would have preferred not to intervene on the matter, leaving it to be settled by the HoR or the Commission on Appointment as the bodies directly involved. 

Therefore, Respondent Singson has been validly elected as a member of the Commission on Appointments and entitled to assume his seat pursuant to Article VI, Section 18, of the Constitution. 

------------------------- 

DISCUSSIONS:

Political Question is a question of policy or those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the Government. 

The parties invoked the case of Cunanan v. Tan, which provides the following:

In the 1961 election of the HoR, 72 seats were won by the Nacionalista Party; 29 by the Liberal Party; and 1 by an independent. The representation in the Commission on Appointments are as follows: 8 from Nacionalista and 4 from the Liberal Party. 

Subsequently, 25 members of the Nacionalista Party joined with the Liberal Party under an Allied Majority and installed a new Speaker and reorganized the House. As a result, 3 from the Nacionalista Party in the Commission on Appointments were replaced by 3 of their colleagues who joined the Allied Majority.

Carlos Cunanan, the Deputy Administrator of the Reforestation Administration was rejected by the Commission on Appointments and instead, designated Jorge Tan, Jr. Cunanan then contended that the rejection of his appointment was void because the Commission on Appointments itself was invalidly constituted.

The Court ruled the reorganization of the Commission on Appointments was invalid because it was not based on the proportional representation of the political parties in the HoR. The Allied Majority does not suffice to authorize the reorganization of the Commission on Appointments. It was a merely temporary combination as the Nacionalista Party defectors had not disaffiliated from their party. Officially, they were still members of the Nacionalista Party.