SC affirms: At least 1 justice needed to make HRET quorum

The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the constitutionality of a House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal rule requiring the presence of a High Court justice to constitute a quorum in HRET meetings.

Sitting en banc, the SC on October 16 dismissed a petition for certiorari filed by former Marinduque Representative Regina Ongsiako Reyes challenging the legality of several provisions of the 2015 Revised Rules of the HRET, according to a statement issued by the court on Tuesday.

Under Rule 6(a) of the guidelines, the presence of at least one justice and four members of the HRET is necessary to constitute a quorum. Reyes had contended this rule violates the Constitution's equal protection clause and gives the justices undue power over the lawmakers.

However, finding Reyes to be "nitpicking," the Court held that this rule only ensures that representatives from both the judicial and legislative departments of government are "indispensable" to constitute an HRET quorum, thus maintaining the balance of power between the members of the co-equal branches.

The HRET, the sole judge of election contests involving House members, is composed of three SC justices designated by the chief justice and six House members, according to Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

"The presence of the three Justices is meant to tone down the political nature of the cases involved and do away with the impression that party interests play a part in the decision-making process," said the decision, penned by Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, as quoted in the statement.

Three justices around as against six House members "was intended as an additional guarantee to ensure impartiality in the judgment of cases," the SC said.

The SC noted that even when all the justices are present, at least two members of the House still need to be around to form a quorum. It added that without Rule 6, it would be possible for five lawmakers to have a quorum even in the absence of a justice.

"This would render ineffective the rationale contemplated by the framers of the 1935 and 1987 Constitutions for placing the Justices as members of the HRET," the decision stated.

Rule 6(a) also does not violate the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution, the SC ruled, since there is "a substantial distinction" between the justices and the lawmakers, and a justification for the classification: ensuring the representation of both the judicial and legislative branches to form a quorum.

The SC further said there was "no merit" to Reyes' claim of ambiguity between Rule 6 and 69 of the HRET rules. "A member of the Tribunal who inhibits or is disqualified from participating in the deliberations cannot be considered present for the purpose of having a quorum," the Court said.

It also found unmeritorious the contention that HRET Rules 15 and 17 unduly expanded the Commission on Elections' jurisdiction by allowing the poll body to assume jurisdiction between the time of the election and within 15 days from June 30 of the election year or the date of actual assumption of office.

"The HRET's jurisdiction is provided under Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. There is no room for the Comelec to assume jurisdiction because HRET's jurisdiction is constitutionally mandated," the SC held.

Finally, the Court announced it had taken judicial notice of an HRET resolution amending Rules 17 and 18 of the 2015 HRET rules providing the reckoning point within which to file an election protest or a petition for quo warranto: “within 15 days from June 30 of the election year if the winning candidate was proclaimed on or before said date" and "within 15 days from the date of promulgation" if he or she is proclaimed after June 30. — MDM, GMA News