Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd
Upload
87 views

Macalintal v. Preisdential Electoral Tribunal G.R. No. 191618. November 23, 2010

The Supreme Court ruled that the creation of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) is constitutional for three reasons: 1) The judicial power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution is plenary and includes the means necessary to carry out its additional jurisdiction to decide presidential and vice-presidential election contests. 2) Consistent with the presidential system of government, the function of settling disputes involving legally demandable rights is apportioned to courts. 3) The power of the judiciary was expanded by the 1987 Constitution to include not just settling actual controversies but also determining grave abuses of discretion, and this power remained absolute.

Uploaded by

VIRILITER AGITE
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
87 views

Macalintal v. Preisdential Electoral Tribunal G.R. No. 191618. November 23, 2010

The Supreme Court ruled that the creation of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) is constitutional for three reasons: 1) The judicial power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution is plenary and includes the means necessary to carry out its additional jurisdiction to decide presidential and vice-presidential election contests. 2) Consistent with the presidential system of government, the function of settling disputes involving legally demandable rights is apportioned to courts. 3) The power of the judiciary was expanded by the 1987 Constitution to include not just settling actual controversies but also determining grave abuses of discretion, and this power remained absolute.

Uploaded by

VIRILITER AGITE
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Macalintal v.

Preisdential Electoral Tribunal


G.R. No. 191618. November 23, 2010

Facts:
Petitioner Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal, through a Motion for Reconsideration reiterates his
arguments that Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution does not provide for the creation of
the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) and that the PET violates Section 12, Article VIII of
the Constitution. In order to strengthen his position, petitioner cites the concurring opinion of
Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro in “Barok” C. Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth
Commission of 2010 that the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) is a public office which
cannot be created by the president, the power to do so being lodged exclusively with Congress.
Thus, petitioner submits that if the President, as head of the Executive Department, cannot
create the PTC, the Supreme Court, likewise, cannot create the PET in the absence of an act of
legislature.

Issue:
Whether or not the creation of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal is Constitutional.

Ruling:
Yes, judicial power granted to the Supreme Court by the same Constitution is plenary. And
under the doctrine of necessary implication, the additional jurisdiction bestowed by the last
paragraph of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution to decide presidential and vice-
presidential elections contests includes the means necessary to carry it into effect. The
traditional grant of judicial power is found in Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution which
provides that the power "shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may
be established by law." Consistent with our presidential system of government, the function of
"dealing with the settlement of disputes, controversies or conflicts involving rights, duties or
prerogatives that are legally demandable and enforceable" is apportioned to courts of justice.
With the advent of the 1987Constitution, judicial power was expanded to include "the duty of
the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government." The power was expanded, but it remained absolute.
Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal is going to town under the misplaced assumption that the text of
the provision itself was the only basis for this Court to sustain the PET’s constitutionality.
The Court reiterates that the PET is authorized by the last paragraph of Section 4, Article VII
of the Constitution and as supported by the discussions of the Members of the Constitutional
Commission, which drafted the present Constitution.

You might also like