Coseteng vs. Mitra, Jr.

The constitutional mandate that House members of the Commission on Appointments shall be elected “on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties” requires that the distribution of seats reflect the relative numerical strength of the political parties in the House, but does not entitle every political party, regardless of size, to a seat; a political party must represent at least 8.4% of the House membership (equivalent to at least seventeen congressmen) to claim a seat, and the remaining seats may be reasonably allocated to the next largest party in the majority and the principal opposition party.

After the May 11, 1987 congressional elections, the House of Representatives comprised members from diverse political parties, including PDP-Laban, Lakas ng Bansa (LB), Liberal Party (LP), NP-Unido, Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan (KBL), Panaghiusa, and Kababaihan Para sa Inang Bayan (KAIBA), along with independents. A Coalesced Majority was formed, and on August 26, 1987, the House elected eleven members to the Commission on Appointments from that majority; one minority member from the KBL was subsequently elected on September 22, 1987. On September 16, 1988, the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) was organized as a formal political party. By March 3, 1989, 160 of the 202 House members had expressly renounced their prior affiliations and formally joined the LDP, making it the new majority and prompting a reorganization of House committee memberships and its delegation to the Commission on Appointments.

• Original Composition of the Commission on Appointments: Following the May 1987 elections, the House elected eleven members to the Commission from the Coalesced Majority, nominated by the Majority Floor Leader, and one member from the Coalesced Minority (Congressman Roque R. Ablan, Jr., KBL). Petitioner Anna Dominique M.L. Coseteng was the sole House member elected under the KAIBA banner; KAIBA was considered part of the Coalesced Majority supporting the Aquino administration.
• Political Realignment: In September 1988, the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) was formed as a political party. By March 3, 1989, 160 of the 202 House members (including former members of the LP, PDP-Laban, LB, NP-Unido, and independents) had formally renounced their original affiliations and joined the LDP, leaving only fifteen members of the Liberal Party. The LDP thus became the dominant majority party, necessitating a reorganization of House committee representations, including the House membership in the Commission on Appointments.
• Reorganization of the Commission on Appointments: On December 5, 1988, acting on the motion of the Majority Floor Leader and over the objection of Congressman Raul A. Daza (LP), the House replaced Daza with Congressman Luis C. Singson (LDP) on the Commission. The resulting membership comprised ten LDP members, one LP member (Congresswoman Lorna L. Verano-Yap), and one KBL member (Congressman Ablan) as the minority representative.
• Petitioner’s Claim: On October 8, 1988, Coseteng wrote to Speaker Ramon Mitra requesting appointment to the Commission on Appointments and the House Electoral Tribunal as KAIBA’s representative. Her request was endorsed by nine other congressmen. After the December 5 reorganization, she and KAIBA filed the instant petition, asserting that the composition violated Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution because: (1) the 158-member LDP majority was entitled to only nine, not ten, seats; (2) the members were not nominated by their respective political parties; (3) respondent Verano-Yap’s election as a representative of the minority was invalid; and (4) respondent Ablan’s retention as minority member was similarly invalid because he was neither nominated nor elected by the minority parties. Coseteng argued that she herself was qualified to sit as a minority representative given the support of nine other minority congressmen and congresswomen.
• Respondents’ Position: The respondent House officials and Commission members (excluding Verano-Yap) contended that the legality of the reorganization was a political question beyond judicial scrutiny. They further maintained that the reorganization strictly complied with Section 18, Article VI, because the seats were allocated on the basis of proportional representation, treating the majority coalition as a political party, and that as of March 3, 1989, 160 members had formally affiliated with the LDP. They argued that KAIBA, being part of the Coalesced Majority, was bound by the majority’s choice. Respondent Verano-Yap separately asserted that the Constitution had not been violated, that she was a rightful incumbent, and that petitioner’s claim lacked legal and factual basis.

• Violation of Proportional Representation: Petitioner argued that the New Majority of 158 LDP members out of 202 was entitled to only nine seats out of twelve, making the allocation of ten seats to the LDP a violation of the constitutional requirement of proportional representation.
• Improper Nomination and Election: Petitioner maintained that Section 18, Article VI requires House members in the Commission on Appointments to be nominated and elected by their respective political parties, and that the respondents had not been so nominated by their parties.
• Invalidity of Minority and LP Appointments: Petitioner contended that the election of respondent Verano-Yap as minority (or LP) representative was clearly invalid, and that respondent Ablan’s retention as minority member was likewise invalid because he was neither nominated nor elected by the minority party or parties in the House.
• Petitioner’s Own Qualification: Petitioner claimed she was qualified to sit as a minority representative on the Commission on Appointments because she had the support of nine other congressmen and congresswomen of the Minority.

• Political Question: Respondents (the House of Representatives, the Speaker, the Majority Floor Leader, and the Commission members except Verano-Yap) argued that the legality of the reorganization of the Commission on Appointments was a political question beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.
• Conformity with Proportional Representation: Respondents asserted that the reorganization was strictly in accordance with Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution, as the distribution of seats was based on proportional representation of the political parties, with the majority coalition treated as a political party; they cited that 160 House members had formally affiliated with the LDP.
• Petitioner Bound by Majority Choice: Respondents argued that KAIBA, as part of the Coalesced Majority supporting the Administration, was bound by the Coalesced Majority’s choice of members to sit on the Commission on Appointments.
• Rightful Incumbency (Verano-Yap): Respondent Verano-Yap contended that she was a rightful incumbent, that the Constitution was not violated, and that petitioner’s claim to a seat lacked both legal and factual basis.

• Justiciability: Whether the question of the legality of the House’s selection of its members to the Commission on Appointments is a political question beyond judicial review.
• Proportional Representation: Whether the election of ten LDP members, one LP member, and one KBL member to the Commission on Appointments complied with the constitutional requirement that the twelve House members be elected “on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties” therein.
• Party Nomination Requirement: Whether Section 18, Article VI requires that the House members in the Commission on Appointments be nominated and elected by their respective political parties, rather than by the House itself.
• Entitlement of Small Party: Whether petitioner Coseteng, as the sole representative of KAIBA, was entitled to a seat on the Commission on Appointments.

• Justiciability: The issue was justiciable. Citing Daza v. Singson, the legality, and not the wisdom, of the manner of filling the Commission on Appointments as prescribed by the Constitution was a subject for judicial review. Even if the question were political in nature, the expanded jurisdiction conferred by Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution authorized the Court to determine whether any branch or instrumentality of government had acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
• Proportional Representation: The apportionment was constitutionally valid. With 160 LDP members out of 202 in the House (approximately 79%, rounded to 80%), the LDP was entitled to 80% of the twelve House seats, or 9.6 members, which was properly rounded to ten members. The remaining two seats were allocated to the LP, the next largest party in the Coalesced Majority, and the KBL, the principal opposition party. This distribution was found to be “on the basis of proportional representation of the political parties” as required by Section 18.
• Party Nomination Requirement: Section 18, Article VI does not require that the members be nominated and elected by their respective political parties. The provision mandates that the twelve members be “elected by each House.” In this case, the members were nominated by their respective floor leaders and were elected by the House, satisfying the constitutional text.
• Entitlement of Small Party: Petitioner Coseteng was not entitled to a seat. KAIBA’s lone member represented only approximately 0.4% (less than 1%) of the House membership. To claim proportional representation on the Commission on Appointments, a political party must represent at least 8.4% of the House membership, equivalent to at least seventeen congressmen. The endorsements of nine congressmen were inconsequential because they were not members of petitioner’s party and had simultaneously endorsed respondent Verano-Yap.

• Proportional Representation in the Commission on Appointments — Under Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, the House of Representatives’ seats on the Commission on Appointments must be distributed among the political parties “on the basis of proportional representation,” meaning the number of seats allotted to each party must correspond to its relative numerical strength in the House. To be entitled to a seat, a political party must represent at least 8.4% of the House membership, which equates to at least seventeen congressmen. Where a party’s proportionate share does not yield a whole number, rounding may be applied, and residual seats may be allocated reasonably to the next largest party in the majority and to the principal opposition party.
• Justiciability of Commission on Appointments Composition — The legality of the manner of filling the Commission on Appointments as prescribed by the Constitution is a justiciable question, not a political question. Even if it were political, the Supreme Court’s expanded jurisdiction under Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution permits review of any branch or instrumentality’s act for grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.

• “The legality, and not the wisdom, of the manner of filling the Commission on Appointments as prescribed by the Constitution is justiciable, and, even if the question were political in nature, it would still come within our powers of review under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us by Article VIII, Section 1, of the Constitution, which includes the authority to determine whether grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction has been committed by any branch or instrumentality of the government.”
• “To be able to claim proportional membership in the Commission on Appointments, a political party should represent at least 8.4% of the House membership, i.e., it should have been able to elect at least 17 congressmen or congresswomen.”
• “The indorsements of the nine (9) congressmen and congresswomen in favor of the petitioner’s election to the Commission are inconsequential because they are not members of her party and they signed identical indorsements in favor of her rival, respondent Congresswoman Verano-Yap.”

• Daza v. Singson, G.R. No. 86344, December 21, 1989 — Followed as controlling precedent on the justiciability of the House’s selection of its members to the Commission on Appointments and on the Court’s authority to review such action under the expanded jurisdiction of Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution.

• Section 18, Article VI, 1987 Constitution — “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 Court interpreted “on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties” to require that the allocation of the twelve House seats correspond to the relative size of each party’s membership in the House, with a minimum threshold of 8.4% for entitlement to a seat.
• Article VIII, Section 1, 1987 Constitution — The expanded judicial power provision authorizing the Supreme Court to determine whether any branch or instrumentality of the government has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction; cited as the basis for reviewing the legality of the House’s action on the Commission on Appointments.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Cortes, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concurred. Sarmiento, J., took no part.