TITLE: ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL vs.

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

G.R. No. 191618
DATE: November 23, 2010
PONENTE: NACHURA, J.
TOPIC: Sec. 4, Art. VII

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal questioned the constitutionality of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal
(PET) as an illegal and unauthorized progeny of Section 4, Article 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.”

While petitioner concedes that the Supreme Court is "authorized to promulgate its rules for the
purpose," he chafes at the creation of a purportedly "separate tribunal" complemented by a budget
allocation, a seal, a set of personnel and confidential employees, to effect the constitutional mandate.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE/S:
Whether or not 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.

HOLDING:
NO. The Supreme Court, as a Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), specifically and exclusively
clothed with jurisdiction by the Constitution to act respectively as "sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications" of the President and Vice-President.

A plain reading of Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, readily reveals a grant of authority to the
Supreme Court sitting en banc. It states that, “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."

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 Tribunal’s functions as a special electoral court.