Abbas v. Senate Electoral Tribunal; | G.R. No. L-83767 | October 27, 1988 | Ponente: Gancayco, J.

Nature of Case: Special Civil Action for Certiorari

Petitioners: Firdausi Smail Abbas, et. al.
Respondents: Senate Electoral Tribunal
SUMMARY: Petitioners ask to disqualify SET Senator-members from hearing an election contest of proclaimed
senators elect. The Court ruled that this would be contrary to ART VI, Sec 17 of the Constitution, which aims to
achieve a balance of both “judicial” and “legislative” components in deciding election contests.
TOPIC: ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
FACTS:
 October 9, 1987: Petitioners filed election contest against 22 candidates of the LABAN coalition, who were
proclaimed senators-elect
o The Electoral Tribunal at the time was composed of 3 Supreme Court Justices and 6 Senators1
 November 17, 1987: Petitioners filed with the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) a Motion for Disqualification or
Inhibition of the Senators-Members from the hearing and resolution of the above-mentioned case.
o Filed on grounds that all of them are interested parties
 After the oral arguments were heard, the SET issued Resolutions denying the petitioners Motion for
Disqualification and their Motion for Reconsideration
 Thus, petitioners filed a Special Civil Action for certiori to the Supreme Court (SC) to nullify and set aside the
Resolutions. They argue that:
o Considerations of public policy and the norms of fair play and due process require the mass
disqualification of the Senators
o Doctrine of necessity won’t be ruled out with their proposed amendment to the SET’s rules of
procedure (To permit contest to be heard by only three members of the tribunal, specifically, the
three Justices of the Court)
ISSUE:
WON the proposed amendment (ie., disqualifying all senate members) violates the constitution—YES
1. Art VI, Sec 17 of the Constitution: “…each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine members, three
of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining
shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives…”
a. Constitution clearly intended that both “judicial” and “legislative” components will have
common duty and authority in deciding contests relating to election, returns, and
qualifications
b. Said intent is even more clearly signaled by the fact that the proportion of membership is 2:1 (2
Senators to 1 Justice)
2. Proposed disqualification and amendment would make the SET abandon duty given to it by the
constitution
3. The Framers of the Constitution may have been aware of the possibility of Senators rendering judgment
on contests involving all 24 Senators, but Constitution provides no scheme for settling such unusual
situation. “Litigants must simply place their trust and hopes of vindication in the fairness and sense of
justice of the SET members.” Moreover, Senators may still voluntary inhibit themselves.
FINAL RULING: The petition is dismissed for lack of merit
1
Senators are Joseph Estrada, Neptali Gonzales, Teofista Guingona, Jose Lina, Mamintal Tamano, and Victor Ziga.
While Enrile voluntarily inhibited himself from participating in hearings and deliberations b/c of another contest
against him
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION OF FELICIANO:
If three Senators inhibit themselves and final Tribunal would be composed of 3 Justices and 3 Senators,
considerations of public policy and fair play, and the “judicial” and “legislative” composition of SET, would still be
achieved.