GR L 2460; (October, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2460; October 26, 1948
NICETAS A. SUANES, petitioner, vs. THE CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, Accounting Division, Senate, and THE DISBURSING OFFICER, Disbursement and Property Division, Senate, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Nicetas A. Suanes was appointed as Secretary to Senator Ramon Diokno, a member of the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET). He received two conflicting appointments: one from the Secretary of the Senate (approved by the Senate President) fixing his salary at P200 per month, and another from the Chairman of the SET fixing it at P300 per month (P3,600 per annum). When Suanes presented a voucher for payment at the higher rate, the Senate’s Chief Accountant and Disbursing Officer refused, stating they were only authorized to pay the salary in the Senate President’s appointment. Suanes filed a petition for mandamus to compel payment at the rate set by the SET Chairman.
ISSUE
Which appointment controls—the one issued by the Senate President or the one issued by the Chairman of the Senate Electoral Tribunal? This depends on the broader issue of whether the Electoral Tribunal is a mere agency of Congress or an independent constitutional body with control over its internal affairs, including the appointment of its own personnel.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling in favor of the appointment issued by the Chairman of the SET. The Court held that the Senate Electoral Tribunal, under the Constitution, is a separate and independent body from the Legislature, created to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election returns and qualifications of members of Congress. As an independent constitutional creation, it possesses complete control over its internal affairs, including the appointment, supervision, and control of its own employees. The Tribunal’s rules, which vest the power of appointment in its Chairman with the Tribunal’s approval, are valid and have the force of law. The inclusion of the SET’s appropriation in the Senate budget is merely a statutory arrangement for payment of expenses and does not make SET employees employees of the Senate. Therefore, the SET Chairman’s appointment prevails, and the respondents have a ministerial duty to disburse the salary accordingly. The motion for reconsideration filed by the respondents was denied.
AI Generated by Armztrong.