G.R. No. 106971 March 1, 1993
TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. and LAKAS-NATIONAL UNION OF CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS (LAKAS-NUCD), petitioners, vs. NEPTALI A. GONZALES, ALBERTO ROMULO and WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, respondents. NATIONALIST PEOPLE’S COALITION, petitioner-in-intervention.

FACTS

Petitioners Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. and Lakas-NUCD challenged the election of respondents Senators Wigberto E. Tañada and Alberto Romulo to the Commission on Appointments by the Senate majority, which was dominated by the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP). The mathematical representation of political parties in the Senate, agreed upon by all parties, was: LDP — 7.5; LP-PDP-LABAN — 0.5; NPC — 2.5; and LAKAS-NUCD — 1.5. The LDP majority elected Senator Romulo, effectively converting its fractional 7.5 membership into a whole 8, and also elected Senator Tañada, who represented the LP-PDP-LABAN with only a 0.5 share. Respondents filed motions for reconsideration of the Court’s October 20, 1992 decision, arguing that the decision erred in its factual appreciation, ignored the multi-party system, that filling twelve seats is mandatory, and that the Senate did not commit grave abuse of discretion. They also cited the precedent of the late Senator Lorenzo Tañada’s membership in the Commission and the “Tolentino Compromise Formula.”

ISSUE

Whether the election of Senators Romulo and Tañada to the Commission on Appointments by the LDP majority violated Article VI, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution , which requires that the twelve Senate members of the Commission be elected “on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein.”

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the motions for reconsideration with finality. The Court held that the election of Senators Romulo and Tañada was a clear violation of the constitutional mandate on proportional representation. By adding its 0.5 fraction to the LP-PDP-LABAN’s 0.5 to create a whole seat for Senator Tañada, and by claiming an 8th seat for itself through Senator Romulo, the LDP majority disturbed the fractional allocations, giving the LDP more representation than it was proportionally entitled to and correspondingly reducing the rightful representation of a minority party. This act, done over the objections of colleagues and by sheer force of numbers, constituted grave abuse of discretion. The provision on proportional representation is mandatory and serves as a check on the majority. The practice of coalition-building to resolve fractional memberships, as seen in the historical membership of the late Senator Lorenzo Tañada, does not establish a precedent that can override the clear constitutional command. The Court’s role as the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation includes reviewing such legislative acts to prevent tyranny by the majority.