CASE DIGEST: ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL v. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (G.R. No.

191618; NOVEMBER 23, 2010)

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION DOCTRINE

Section 4, 2 Articles VII of the Constitution:

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the
purpose.

Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution,

Prohibits the designation of Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law to
any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.

FACTS: Atty. Romulo Macalintal questions the constitutionality of the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal(PET) as an illegal and unauthorized progeny of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution. And
question the composition of the PET of which violation to Section 12, Art 8 of the 1987 constitution.

ISSUES:

1. WON the creation of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal is unconstitutional for being a violation
of paragraph 7, Section 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution

2. WON the designation of members of the Supreme Court as members of the presidential
electoral tribunal is unconstitutional for being a violation of Section 12, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution

HELD:

First Issue: Petitioner, a prominent election lawyer who has filed several cases before this Court
involving constitutional and election law issues, including, among others, the constitutionality of certain
provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003), cannot claim
ignorance of: (1) the invocation of our jurisdiction under Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution; and (2)
the unanimous holding thereon. Unquestionably, the overarching framework affirmed in Tecson v.
Commission on Electionsis that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to decide presidential and
vice-presidential election protests while concurrently acting as an independent Electoral Tribunal.

Verba legis dictates that wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their
ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed, in which case the significance thus
attached to them prevails. However, where there is ambiguity or doubt, the words of the Constitution
should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers or ratio legis et anima. A doubtful
provision must be examined in light of the history of the times, and the condition and circumstances
surrounding the framing of the Constitution. Last, ut magis valeat quam pereat the Constitution is to be
interpreted as a whole.

By the same token, the PET is not a separate and distinct entity from the Supreme Court, albeit it has
functions peculiar only to the Tribunal. It is obvious that the PET was constituted in implementation of
Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution, and it faithfully complies not unlawfully defies the
constitutional directive. The adoption of a separate seal, as well as the change in the nomenclature of
the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices into Chairman and Members of the Tribunal, respectively,
was designed simply to highlight the singularity and exclusivity of the Tribunals functions as a special
electoral court. The PET, as intended by the framers of the Constitution, is to be an institution
independent, but not separate, from the judicial department, i.e., the Supreme Court.

Second Issue: It is also beyond cavil that when the Supreme Court, as PET, resolves a presidential or vice-
presidential election contest, it performs what is essentially a judicial power. In the landmark case of
Angara v. Electoral Commission,Justice Jose P. Laurel enucleated that "it would be inconceivable if the
Constitution had not provided for a mechanism by which to direct the course of government along
constitutional channels." In fact, Angara pointed out that "[t]he Constitution is a definition of the
powers of government." And yet, at that time, the 1935 Constitution did not contain the expanded
definition of judicial power found in Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 2 of the present Constitution.
DENIED.