1.) AVE ran for Congressman of QU province. However, his opponent, BART, was the one proclaimed and seated as the winner of the election by the COMELEC. AVE filed seasonably a protest before HRET (House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal). After two years, HRET reversed the COMELEC's decision and AVE was proclaimed finally as the duly elected Congressman. Thus, he had only one year to serve in Congress. Can AVE collect salaries and allowances from the government for the first two years of his term as Congressman? Should BART refund to the government the salaries and allowances he had received as Congressman? What will happen to the bills that BART alone authored and were approved by the House of Representatives while he was seated as Congressman? Reason and explain briefly.
AVE cannot collect salaries and allowances from the government for the first two years of his term, because in the meanwhile BART collected the salaries and allowances. BART was a de facto officer while he was in possession of the office. To allow AVE to collect the salaries and allowances will result in making the government pay a second time (Mechem, A Treatise on the Law of Public Offices and Public Officers,  pp. 222-223). BART is not required to refund to the government the salaries and allowances he received. As a de facto officer, he is entitled to the salaries and allowances because he rendered services during his incumbency (Rodriguez v. Tan, 91 Phil. 724). The bills which BART alone authored and were approved by the House of Representatives are valid because he was a de facto officer during his incumbency. The acts of a de facto officer are valid insofar as the public is concerned. (People v. Garcia, 313 SCRA 279)
2.) Suppose there, are 202 members in the House of Representatives. Of this number, 185 belong to the Progressive Party of the Philippines or PPP, while 17 belong to the Citizens Party or CP. How would you answer the following questions regarding the representation of the House in the Commission on Appointments? A. How many seats would the PPP be entitled to have in the Commission on Appointments? Explain your answer fully. B. Suppose 15 of the CP representatives, while maintaining their party affiliation, entered into a political alliance with the PPP in order to form the “Rainbow Coalition” in the House. What effect, if any, would this have on the right of the CP to have a seat or seats in the Commission on Appointments? Explain your answer fully.
A.) The 185 members of the Progressive Party of the Philippines represent 58 percent of the 202 members of the House of Representatives, in accordance with Article VI, Section 18 of the Constitution, it is entitled to have ten of the twelve seats in the Commission on Appointments. Although the 185 members of Progressive Party of the Philippines represent 10.98 seats in the Commission on Appointments, under the ruling in Guingona v. Gonzales, 214 SCRA 789 (1992), a fractional membership cannot be rounded off to full membership because it will result in overrepresentation of that political party and under-representation of the other political parties.
B.) The political alliance formed by the 15 members of the Citizens Party with the Progressive Party of the Philippines will not result in the diminution of the number of seats in the Commission on Appointments to which the Citizens Party is As held in Cunanan v. Tan, 5SCRA 1 (1962), a temporary alliance between the members of one political party and another political party does not authorize a change in the membership of the Commission on Appointments. Otherwise, the Commission on Appointments will have to be reorganized as often as votes shift from one side to another in the House of Representatives.
3.) Y was elected Senator in the May 1987 national elections. He was born out of wedlock in 1949 of an American father and a naturalized Filipina mother. Y never elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Before what body should T, the losing candidate, question the election of Y? State the reasons for your answer.
T, the losing candidate, should question the election of Y before the Senate Electoral Tribunal, because the issue involved is the qualification of Y to be a Senator. Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides that. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members."
4.) What is the function of the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal?
The function of the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal is to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of Senators and congressmen, respectively. (Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution)
The Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal are composed of nine members, three of whom are Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six members are Senators and Congressmen, respectively, chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties as well as the parties registered under the party-list system represented in the House of Representatives, in the case of the latter. (Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution)
6.) Beauty was proclaimed as the winning candidate for the position of Representative in the House of Representatives three (3) days after the elections in May. She then immediately took her oath of office. However, there was a pending disqualification case against her, which case was eventually decided by the COMELEC against her 10 days after the election. Since she has already been proclaimed, she ignored that decision and did not bother appealing it. The COMELEC then declared in the first week of June that its decision holding that Beauty was not validly elected had become final. Beauty then went to the Supreme Court questioning the jurisdiction of the COMELEC claiming that since she had already been proclaimed and had taken her oath of office, such election body had no more right to come up with a decision – that the jurisdiction had already been transferred to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. How defensible is the argument of Beauty?
The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal has acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the case of Beauty, since she has already been proclaimed. The proclamation of the winning candidate is the operative fact that triggers the exclusive jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal over election contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the winning candidate,. The proclamation divests the Commission on Elections of jurisdiction over the question of disqualifications pending before it at the time of the proclamation. Any case pertaining to questions over the qualifications of a winning candidate should be raised before the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal. (Limkaichong v. COMELEC, 583 SCRA 1; Jalosjos, Jr. v. COMELEC, 674 SCRA 530)