1 G. R. No. 83767 October 27, 1988 Juan Ponce Enrile, et al. vs. The Senate Electoral Tribunal This is a Special Civil Action for certiorari to nullify and set aside the Resolutions of the Senate Electoral Tribunal dated February 12, 1988 and May 27, 1988, denying respectiv ely, the petitioner s’ Motion for Disqual ification or Inhibition and their Motion forReconsiderations thereafter filed. Facts of the Case: On Oct ober 9, 1987, the petitio ners filed before the respondent Tribunal an el ect ion contes t docketed as SET Case No. 002 -87 aga inst 22 candida tes of the LA BA N co al it io n wh o we re pro cl ai me d sena to rs-e le ct in th e Ma y 11 , 19 87 congressional elections by the Commission on Elections. The respondent Tribunal was at the time composed of three (3) Justices of the Supreme Court and six (6) Senators, namely: Senior Associate Justice Pedro L. Yap (Chairman), Associate Justices Andres R. Narvasa and Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr. and Senators Joseph E. Estrada, Neptali A. Gonzales, Teofisto T. Guingona, Jose Lina, Jr., Mamintal A. J. Tamano and Victor S. Ziga. On November 17, 1987, the petitioners filed with the respondent Tribunal a Motion for Dis qual ifica tion or Inhibition of the Sen ator s-Me mbers ther eof from the hearing and resolution of SET Case No. 002-87 on the ground that all of them are interested parties to said case, as respondents therein. The petitioners argue that considerations of public policy and the norms of fairplay and due process impera tively require the mass disqualif ication sought and that the doctrine of necessity which they perceive to be the foundation of the petition of the questioned Resolution does not rule out a solution both practicable and constitutionally uno bje ct ion able, namely: the amendment of the responde nt Tr ibuna l’s Rules ofProcedure so as to permi t the con test bein g decide d by only thre e Members of the Tribunal. The proposed amendment to the Tribunal’s Rules (Section 24) – requiring the concurrence of five (5) members for the adoption of resolution of whatever nature is a proviso that where more than four (4) members are disqualified, the remaining members shall constitute a quorum, if not less than three (3) including one (1) Justice, and may adopt resolutions by majority vote with no abstentions. This would, in the context of that situation, leave the resolution of the contest to the only three Members who would remain, all Justices of the Supreme Court, whose disqualification is not sought. Issue: 1. Whether both the considerations of public policy and fair play and the constitutional inte nt conc erni ng mix ed “jud icia l” and “leg isla tive ” compos ition of the Elec tora l Tribunal would appear to be substantially met and served?
