Macalintal seeks abolition of Presidential tribunal

ADMINISTRATION lawyer Romulo Macalintal on Monday filed a petition seeking the abolition of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) for being unconstitutional, barely a month before the May elections.

In his seven-page petition he filed before the Supreme Court (SC), Macalintal said the creation of the PET as sole judge of all electoral contests for the position of president and vice president runs counter Paragraph 7 of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution.

Click here for Election 2010 updates

This provision states that the SC, 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.”

Macalintal further said the SC is not authorized by the Constitution to create another tribunal among itself performing a quasi-judicial function and operating with a separate budget, employees and a different seal.

He cited Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution which provides that “the members of the Supreme Court and other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative function.”

“Since the PET is a tribunal exercising a ‘quasi-judicial function,’ we would have an anomaly of a decision or resolution of the PET rendered by the members of this Honorable Court exercising quasi-judicial functions being asked to be reviewed on certiorari by the same members of this Honorable Court who are also designated as members of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), another quasi-judicial body, are not allowed to inhibit in cases decided by the said tribunal are brought to this Honorable Court on certiorari,” he said.

Making a previous SC ruling as an example, Macalintal came short of saying the SC justices have violated the constitutional ban on dual positions in government.

“The creation of the PET and the designation of the Chief Justice as Chairman thereof and the Associate Justices as Members, is in direct contravention of the express mandate of Section 12, Article VIII that they shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions,” he said.

Such was the case when the SC nullified the designation of Ma. Elena Bautista as undersecretary of the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) and administrator of the Maritime Industry Authority (Marina) in a concurrent capacity, in violation of the dual position ban.

“It falls under the stricter prohibition under the aforesaid provision of the 1987 Constitution, if we may paraphrase this Honorable Court in Funa vs. Ermita, where it resolved the issues of designation to dual, multiple and/or incompatible offices involving the position of former DOTC undersecretary Elena Bautista,” he said.

The PET is composed of all 15 justices of the High Court, with the chief justice as the ex-officio chairman and the associate justices as members. It receives a separate budget from the National Government for its operations.

“While the SC was empowered to promulgate its own rules in hearing election protests, the Constitution does not authorize (it) to create a separate ‘tribunal’ with separate budgetary allocation, with new seal, new set of personnel and confidential employees to exercise the function of being ‘the sole judge’ to decide the said election contests,” he said.

“In other words, such ‘election contests’ should be docketed and decided, just like an ordinary case or petition, under the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court,” he added.

Under the 2010 General Appropriations Act, the PET has a budget of P55.971 million for this year.

The PET chairman receives a monthly allowance of P150,000 while the members get P100,000 each. Each member is also entitled to “at least four confidential employees.”

Although the PET has been created as early as 1957, it was only in 2005 when the SC promulgated the rules governing the tribunal.

The 2005 Rules of PET provides for its membership where its head is called the “chairman” and the others are simply called members instead of being addressed as chief justice and associate justices of the High Court.

The PET chairman is authorized to appoint personnel and confidential employees of every member of the tribunal.

The rules provide for a separate “administrative staff of the tribunal” with the appointment of a clerk of court and deputy clerk of court. It also provides for a seal separate and distinct from that of the SC.

Thus, these rules “clearly point to the fact that the PET is a tribunal separate and distinct from this honorable Court and apparently operating under a separate budgetary allocation,” petitioner said.

The noted election lawyer appealed to the SC to resolve his petition with dispatch “in view of the forthcoming presidential elections on May 10, 2010 where cases may be filed involving the election, returns or qualifications of candidates for president or vice president.” (ECV/Sunnex)