Case Digest: FRANKLIN M. DRILON, et al. v. HON. JOSE DE VENECIA, et al 594 SCRA 743 (2009)

FRANKLIN M. DRILON, et al. v. HON. JOSE DE VENECIA, et al 594 SCRA 743 (2009)

Issues involving the deprivation of a seat in the Commission on Appointments should be lodged before the respective Houses of Congress and not with the Supreme Court. 
The Senate and the House of Representatives elected their respective contingents to the Commission on Appointments (CA). In the second week of August 2007, Franklin Drilon et al. went to respondent then Speaker Jose de Venecia to ask for one seat for the Liberal Party in the CA. However, no report or recommendation was proffered by the Legal Department, drawing Representative Tañada to request a report or recommendation on the matter within three days. Hence spawned the filing by Drilon (in representation of the Liberal Party), et al., alleging that the liberal party with at least twenty (20) members who signed herein, is constitutionally entitled to one (1) seat in the CA.
Meantime, Senator Ma. Ana Consuelo A.S. Madrigal of PDP-Laban wrote a letter claiming that ―the Senate contingent in the CA violated the constitutional requirement of proportional representation‖. The Senator avers that political parties PMP and KAMPI were given more seats than they were entitled to in the CA and the political party PRP and other Independents cannot be represented in the CA.
The CA, speaking through its Ex-Officio Chairman Manny Villar, advised Senator Madrigal that CA ―has neither the power nor the discretion to reject a member who is elected by either House, and that any complaints about the election of a member or members should be addressed to the body that elected them.‖ Villar further explained that instructions have been given to ―transmit the original copies of Senator Madrigal‘s letters to the Senate Secretary for their immediate inclusion in the Order of Business of the Session of the Senate.‖
Madrigal, not satisfied with the CA‘s action, filed a petition with the Supreme Court for prohibition and mandamus with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order/ writ of preliminary injunction against Senator Villar as Senate President and Ex-Officio Chairman of the CA.

The Court consolidated the petitions filed by Drilon et al. and Madrigal et al.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the petition before the Supreme Court is proper.

HELD:

The first petition, G.R. No. 180055, has thus indeed been rendered moot with the designation of a Liberal Party member of the House contingent to the CA, hence, as prayed for, the petition is withdrawn. As for the second petition, G.R. No. 183055, it fails. Senator Madrigal failed to show that she sustained direct injury as a result of the act complained of. Her petition does not in fact allege that she or her political party PDP-Laban was deprived of a seat in the CA, or that she or PDP-Laban possesses personal and substantial interest to confer on her/it locus standi.
Senator Madrigal‘s primary recourse rests with the respective Houses of Congress and not with this Court. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction dictates that prior recourse to the House is necessary before she may bring her petition to court. Senator Villar‘s invocation of said doctrine is thus well-taken.