Mr. Yellow and Mr. Orange were the leading candidates in the vice-presidential elections. After elections, Yellow emerged as the winner by a slim margin of 100,000 votes. Undaunted, Orange filed a protest with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). After due consideration of the facts and the issues, the PET ruled that Orange was the real winner of the elections and ordered his immediate proclamation.
Aggrieved, Yellow filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for Certiorari challenging the decision of the PET alleging grave abuse of discretion. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction? Explain. (3%)
Would the answer in (a.) be the same if Yellow and Orange were contending for a senatorial slot and it was the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) who issued the challenged ruling? (3%)
What is the composition of the PET? (2%)
What is judicial power? Explain Briefly. (2%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
(a) No, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over the PET decision, but (b) the answer differs if the SET issued the ruling.
Under Macalintal vs PET and Section 4, Article VII, the PET is the Supreme Court sitting en banc—composed of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices—and is not a separate body. Under Section 17, Article VI, SET rulings are reviewable by the Supreme Court via certiorari for grave abuse of discretion. Under Section 1, Article VIII, judicial power includes settling controversies and determining grave abuse of discretion.
Here, certiorari against the PET is improper as the PET is the Supreme Court itself, whereas an SET decision is reviewable for grave abuse.
Therefore, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over the PET petition, has certiorari jurisdiction over the SET, and the PET is the Supreme Court En Banc.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Under Macalintal v. PET, what is the constitutional relationship between the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) and the Supreme Court?
The PET is constituted by the Supreme Court sitting en banc and is not a separate entity.
Why is a petition for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court to review a PET decision improper?
Certiorari is improper because the Supreme Court cannot exercise certiorari jurisdiction over its own en banc tribunal.
How do decisions of the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) differ from PET decisions regarding Supreme Court review?
SET rulings are reviewable by the Supreme Court through certiorari on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
What is the composition of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal under Section 4, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution?
The PET is composed of the Chief Justice and all Associate Justices of the Supreme Court sitting en banc.
Under Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, what does the expanded concept of judicial power include?
Judicial power includes settling actual legal controversies and determining grave abuse of discretion by any government branch.
Learn more about these topics
1. Electoral Tribunal Nature
Under Section 4, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution and Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) is not a separate or distinct body from the Supreme Court. The PET is constituted by the Supreme Court sitting en banc, composed of the Chief Justice and all Associate Justices. Consequently, a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court seeking to review a decision of the PET is improper, because the Supreme Court cannot issue a writ of certiorari against itself or review its own en banc decisions as an appellate tribunal.
2. Legislative Electoral Tribunals
Under Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and settled jurisprudence such as Lerias v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) is an independent constitutional body designated as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Senators. Unlike the PET, the SET is an independent tribunal separate from the Supreme Court. Decisions of the SET are subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion.
3. Judicial Power Definition
Under Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. This expanded concept of judicial power empowers the Judiciary, led by the Supreme Court, to enforce constitutional boundaries and correct arbitrary governmental action.