Scribd
Upload
145 views1 page

Macalintal Vs PET

The Supreme Court denied Atty. Romulo Macalintal's motion for reconsideration regarding the constitutionality of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). Macalintal argued that the creation of the PET by the Supreme Court did not fall within the scope of the Constitution. However, the Court held that the PET is constitutional, as the framers intended the Supreme Court to have exclusive authority to judge election cases involving the President and Vice President. Further, election issues are judicial in nature, and the creation of the PET was a means for the Supreme Court to carry out its constitutional mandate to resolve such cases.

Uploaded by

Chloe Hernane
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
145 views1 page

Macalintal Vs PET

The Supreme Court denied Atty. Romulo Macalintal's motion for reconsideration regarding the constitutionality of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). Macalintal argued that the creation of the PET by the Supreme Court did not fall within the scope of the Constitution. However, the Court held that the PET is constitutional, as the framers intended the Supreme Court to have exclusive authority to judge election cases involving the President and Vice President. Further, election issues are judicial in nature, and the creation of the PET was a means for the Supreme Court to carry out its constitutional mandate to resolve such cases.

Uploaded by

Chloe Hernane
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

[CASE DIGEST] Macalintal v. PET (G.R. No.

191618)
June 7, 2011 | G.R. No. 191618

Atty. Romulo Macalintal, petitioner


Presidential Electoral Tribunal, respondent

FACTS:

Atty. Romulo Macalintal filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the previous ruling of the SC that
found the creation of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal by the SC as constitutional. In his motion,
Macalintal contended that the creation of the PET by the SC did not fall within the ambit of the last
paragraph of Section 4, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. He also contended that the PET exercises
quasi-judicial power, and thus, its members violate Section 12, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution,

ISSUE:

Whether or not the PET is constitutional.

HELD:

Yes, the Court held that PET is constitutional. A look at the deliberations of the framers reveals that the
exclusive authority granted to the SC in judging cases relating to the elections of President and Vice-
President does not impinge on the supposed separation of power between the judiciary and the executive
departments, even if the said provision can be found in Art. VII.

The Court held that election issues are adversarial and judicial proceedings, and are essentially
justiciable questions.

Similarly, the Court held that in creating PET, it merely constitutionalized what was statutory. The last
paragraph of Section 4, Art. VII bestows upon the SC the power to hear questions relating to the election
of the President and Vice-President. Following the doctrine of necessary implication, the creation of PET
should be seen as the means necessary to carry said constitutional mandate into effect.

Motion for reconsideration denied.

You might also like