G.R. No. 141489 & 141490. November 29, 2002
SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., REPRESENTATIVES MELVYN D. EBALLE, LEONARDO Q. MONTEMAYOR, CRESENTE C. PAEZ, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES and PATRICIA M. SARENAS, petitioners, vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, JUSTICES JOSE A.R. MELO, VICENTE V. MENDOZA and JOSE C. VITUG, and REPRESENTATIVES ASANI S. TAMMANG, RAUL M. GONZALES, DIDAGEN P. DILANGALEN, DANTON Q. BUESER, NAPOLEON R. BERATIO, SIMEON E. GARCIA and SPEAKER MANUEL B. VILLAR, JR., respondents.

SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. REPRESENTATIVES MELVYN D. EBALLE, LEONARDO Q. MONTEMAYOR, CRESENTE C. PAEZ, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES and PATRICIA M. SARENAS, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, its Chair, SENATE PRESIDENT BLAS F. OPLE, and Members, namely: SENATORS FRANKLIN M. DRILON, RENATO L. CAYETANO, LOREN LEGARDA-LEVISTE, ROBERT Z. BARBERS, ANNA DOMINIQUE M.L. COSETENG, GREGORIO HONASAN, RAMON B. MAGSAYSAY, JR., TERESA AQUINO-ORETA, RAUL S. ROCO, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, VICENTE C. SOTTO III and REPRESENTATIVES LUIS A. ASISTIO, EMILIO R. ESPINOSA, JR., WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, MANUEL M. GARCIA, SIMEON A. DATUMANONG, ANTONIO M. DIAZ, FAUSTINO S. DY, JR., PACIFICO M. FAJARDO, ERNESTO F. HERRERA, NUR G. JAAFAR, CARLOS M. PADILLA, ROGELIO M. SARMIENTO and SPEAKER MANUEL B. VILLAR, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. and five party-list representatives, filed two original petitions for prohibition and mandamus. They assailed the composition of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and the Commission on Appointments (CA) for not including any party-list representatives. The petitions were filed after the May 11, 1998 elections, which for the first time included the election of party-list representatives to the House of Representatives. Fourteen party-list representatives from 13 organizations were proclaimed winners. Subsequently, the House constituted its contingents to the HRET and CA, composed solely of district representatives from various political parties. Petitioners contended that under Sections 17 and 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and the Party-List System Act (R.A. No. 7941), party-list representatives should be included based on proportional representation. They argued that the refusal of the HRET and CA to reconstitute themselves constituted grave abuse of discretion. Prior to filing the petitions, Senator Pimentel wrote letters to the Chairmen of the CA and HRET requesting the restructuring to include party-list representatives, which were referred to the House Secretary-General.

ISSUE

1. Whether the present composition of the HRET violates the constitutional requirement of proportional representation because there are no party-list representatives.
2. Whether the present membership of the House in the CA violates the constitutional requirement of proportional representation because there are no party-list representatives.
3. Whether the refusal of the HRET and the CA to reconstitute themselves to include party-list representatives constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the consolidated petitions. The Court held that the petitions had been rendered moot and academic by the May 14, 2001 elections, which necessarily changed the composition of the House of Representatives. The issues raised were based on the “present composition” of the House as of the filing of the petitions. With the intervening elections, that composition was no longer current. In the absence of a proper petition assailing the new composition of the HRET and CA after the 2001 elections, the Court could not resolve the issues. To rule on the petitions based on the old composition would be tantamount to rendering an advisory opinion, which is outside the Court’s jurisdiction. The petitions were therefore dismissed.