G.R. No. L-83767 October 27, 1988
Firdausi Smail Abbas, et al., petitioners, vs. The Senate Electoral Tribunal, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners, including several senatorial candidates, filed an election contest (SET Case No. 002-87) before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) against 22 proclaimed senators-elect from the May 1987 elections. The SET was composed of three Supreme Court Justices and six Senators. The petitioners filed a Motion for Disqualification or Inhibition seeking to disqualify all six Senator-Members from hearing and resolving the case on the ground that they were respondents in the election contest and were therefore interested parties. The SET denied this motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration.
The petitioners proposed a solution: amending the Tribunal’s Rules to allow the contest to be decided by only three members—specifically, the three Justice-Members—in the event that more than four members were disqualified. They argued this was a practicable and constitutionally permissible way to address the perceived conflict of interest and ensure fair play and due process, invoking public policy considerations.

ISSUE

Whether the Senate Electoral Tribunal committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for mass disqualification of its Senator-Members, and whether the Tribunal can validly function and decide a senatorial election contest with only its three Justice-Members constituting a quorum.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the SET. The Court anchored its ruling on the explicit constitutional mandate under Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution. This provision creates the Senate Electoral Tribunal as a nine-member body composed of three Supreme Court Justices and six Senators chosen based on proportional representation from political parties. The Constitution designates this Tribunal as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Senators.
The Court emphasized that the constitutional structure, with a legislative component outnumbering the judicial component two-to-one, clearly intended both components to commonly share the duty and authority of adjudicating senatorial election contests. To exclude the Senator-Members entirely would violate the spirit and intent of the Constitution. The proposed amendment to the Tribunal’s rules, which would allow the three Justices alone to decide the case, was therefore constitutionally impermissible. The Court clarified that while any individual member may voluntarily inhibit themselves based on conscience, the Tribunal cannot legally function as intended by the Constitution without its full complement of Senator-Members. The doctrine of necessity applies, and litigants must trust in the collective fairness and sense of justice of the Tribunal’s entire membership.