Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > January 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 165806 : January 17, 2012] KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO (KAMPI), HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT HON. RONALDO V. PUNO, ET AL. v. HON. JOSE DE VENECIA, ET AL. AND G.R. NO. 165807 (KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO (KAMPI), HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT HON. RONALDO V. PUNO, ET AL. V. HON. JOSE DE VENECIA, ET AL. :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JANUARY 17, 2012, which reads as follows:cralaw

"G.R. No. 165806 (Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino (KAMPI), herein represented by its President Hon. Ronaldo V. Puno, et al. v. Hon. Jose de Venecia, et al.) and G.R. No. 165807 (Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino (KAMPI), herein represented by its President Hon. Ronaldo V. Puno, et al. v. Hon. Jose de Venecia, et al. ). - This resolves the consolidated Rule 65 petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction, docketed as G.R. Nos. 165806 and 165807, both filed by herein petitioner Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino (KAMPI), represented by Ronaldo V. Puno and Victor R. Sumulong, its president and vice-president, respectively.

The petitions are perched on the application of the principle of proportional representation of political parties in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET),^[1] as well as in the Commission on Appointments (CA),^[2] as provided for in Sections 17^[3] and 18,^[4] Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, relative to the 13th Congress which convened following the 2004 national elections. It is alleged that out of the 236 membership in the House of Representatives then, Lakas-CMD had the most share of 80 members, followed by herein petitioner with 36 members, and by Liberal Party and National People's Coalition Party, which had 34 and 33 members, respectively. Petitioner's own numerical estimation is that on the basis of proportional representation, it was entitled to one (1) seat in the six-man House contingent in the HRET, and to two (2) seats in the twelve-man contingent in the CA, yet it was not given a slot in either body. Believing that respondents had committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and that there was supposedly no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, petitioner instituted these actions in Court (a) to declare respondents' non-allotment of seats to petitioner in the HRET and in the CA as illegal for violation of the proportional representation rule; (b) to declare the constitution of the HRET and the CA, as well as the proceedings already taken by these bodies, to be null and void; and (c) to prohibit respondents from further proceeding with their actions, and require them to reconstitute both the HRET and the CA in strict observance of the proportional representation rule by allotting to it a seat in the HRET and two seats in the CA.

At the outset, it is clear that the issues propounded by petitioner have already become moot and academic in light of the supervening elections of 2007 and 2010 which, giving way to the 14th and the 15th Congress, had brought about changes in political leadership, party affiliation and membership in the House of Representatives, as well as the numbers that matter in determining representation in the HRET and the CA. In other words, whether there was proportional representation in these bodies in the 13th Congress, although mainly debatable, nevertheless escapes practical value in light of the present composition of the House. Indeed, one of the things that bring mootness to a case is where no useful purpose may be served in passing upon its merits or where the judgment therein, in the nature of things, might no longer be enforced. As a rule, where faced with such situation, as in these petitions, the Court either declines jurisdiction or dismisses the case upon that ground.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DISMISSES the consolidated petitions in G.R. No. 165806 and G.R. No. 165807 for being moot and academic."

Brion, J., on official leave

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] G.R. No. 165807.

^[2] G.R. No. 165806. 

^[3] Section 17. 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. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman 

^[4] Section 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve Members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members.