ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL, petitioner, vs. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, respondent.

20
Constitutional Law; Election Law; Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET); Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) is authorized by the last paragraph of Section 4 !rticle "## of the Constitution and as supported by the discussions of the $e%bers of the Constitutional Co%%ission; The Constitution cannot contain the specific wording re&uired by petitioner in order for hi% to accept the constitutionality of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET)'()e reiterate that the PET is authorized by the last paragraph of Section 4 !rticle "## of the Constitution and as supported by the discussions of the $e%bers of the Constitutional Co%%ission which drafted the present Constitution' The e*plicit reference by the fra%ers of our Constitution to constitutionalizing what was %erely statutory before is not diluted by the absence of a phrase line or word %andating the Supre%e Court to create a Presidential Electoral Tribunal' Suffice it to state that the Constitution +erbose as it already is cannot contain the specific wording re&uired by petitioner in order for hi% to accept the constitutionality of the PET' Sa%e; Sa%e; Sa%e; )ords and Phrases; ,octrine of -ecessary #%plication; .nder the doctrine of necessary i%plication the additional /urisdiction bestowed by the last paragraph of Section 4 !rticle "## of the Constitution to decide presidential and +ice0presidential elections contests includes the %eans necessary to carry it into effect'(!"di#i$% po&er 'r$nted to t(e S"pre)e Co"rt *+ t(e s$)e Constit"tion is p%en$r+. And "nder t(e do#trine o, ne#ess$r+ i)p%i#$tion, t(e $ddition$% -"risdi#tion *esto&ed *+ t(e %$st p$r$'r$p( o, Se#tion ., Arti#%e /II o, t(e Constit"tion to de#ide presidenti$% $nd vi#e0presidenti$% e%e#tions #ontests in#%"des t(e )e$ns ne#ess$r+ to #$rr+ it into e,,e#t. $1T#1- 213 3EC1-S#,E3!T#1- of a decision of the Supre%e Court' The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court' 3ES1L.T#1-!C4.3! 5'6 7efore us is a $otion for 3econsideration filed by petitioner !tty' 3o%ulo 7' $acalintal of our ,ecision in 8'3' -o' 9:9;9< dated -o+e%ber => =?9? dis%issing his petition and declaring the establish%ent of respondent Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) as constitutional' Petitioner reiterates his argu%ents on the alleged unconstitutional creation of the PET6 9'4e has standing to file the petition as a ta*payer and a concerned citizen' ='4e is not estopped fro% assailing the constitution of the PET si%ply by +irtue of his appearance as counsel of for%er president 8loria $acapagal0!rroyo before respondent tribunal' >'Section 4 !rticle "## of the Constitution does not pro+ide for the creation of the PET' 4'The PET +iolates Section 9= !rticle "### of the Constitution' To bolster his argu%ents that the PET is an illegal and unauthorized progeny of Section 4 !rticle "## of the Constitution petitioner in+o@es our ruling on the constitutionality of the Philippine Truth Co%%ission (PTC)'= Petitioner cites the concurring opinion of 5ustice Teresita 5' Leonardo0de Castro that the PTC is a public office which cannot be created by the President the power to do so being lodged e*clusi+ely with Congress' Thus petitioner sub%its that if the President as head of the E*ecuti+e ,epart%ent cannot create the PTC the Supre%e Court li@ewise cannot create the PET in the absence of an act of legislature' 1n the other hand in its Co%%ent to the $otion for 3econsideration the 1ffice of the Solicitor 8eneral %aintains that6 9'Petitioner is without standing to file the petition' ='Petitioner is estopped fro% assailing the /urisdiction of the PET' >'The constitution of the PET is Aon fir% footing on the basis of the grant of authority to the BSupre%eC Court to be the sole /udge of all election contests for the President or "ice0President under paragraph D Section 4 !rticle "## of the 9:<D Constitution'E

E*cept for the in+ocation of our decision in Louis A7aro@E C' 7iraogo +' The Philippine Truth Co%%ission of =?9? > petitioner does not allege new argu%ents to warrant reconsideration of our ,ecision' )e cannot agree with his insistence that the creation of the PET is unconstitutional' )e reiterate that the abstraction of the Supre%e Court acting as a Presidential Electoral Tribunal fro% the une&ui+ocal grant of /urisdiction in the last paragraph of Section 4 !rticle "## of the Constitution is sound and tenable' The pro+ision reads6 ASec'4'* * *' The Supre%e Court sitting en banc shall be the sole /udge of all contests relating to the election returns and &ualifications of the President or "ice0President and %ay pro%ulgate its rules for the purpose'E )e %apped out the discussions of the Constitutional Co%%ission on the foregoing pro+ision and concluded therefro% that6 AThe %irabile dictu of the grant of /urisdiction to this Court albeit found in the !rticle on the e*ecuti+e branch of go+ern%ent and the constitution of the PET is e+ident in the discussions of the Constitutional Co%%ission' 1n the e*ercise of this CourtFs /udicial power as sole /udge of presidential and +ice0presidential election contests and to pro%ulgate its rules for this purpose we find the proceedings in the Constitutional Co%%ission %ost instructi+e6 $3' ,!"#,E' 1n line =G after the words A"ice0President E # propose to add !-, $!H P31$.L8!TE #TS 3.LES 213 T4E P.3P1SE' This refers to the Supre%e Court sitting en banc' This is also to confer on the Supre%e Court e*clusi+e authority to enact the necessary rules while acting as sole /udge of all contests relating to the election returns and &ualifications of the President or "ice0President' $3' 3E8!L!,1' $y personal position is that the rule0%a@ing power of the Supre%e Court with respect to its internal procedure is already i%plicit under the !rticle on the 5udiciary; considering howe+er that according to the Co%%issioner the purpose of this is to indicate the sole power of the Supre%e Court without inter+ention by the legislature in the pro%ulgation of its rules on this particular point # thin@ # will personally reco%%end its acceptance to the Co%%ittee' **** $3' -1LLE,1 * * *' )ith respect to Sections 9? and 99 on page < # understand that the Co%%ittee has also created an Electoral Tribunal in the Senate and a Co%%ission on !ppoint%ents which %ay co+er %e%bership fro% both 4ouses' 7ut %y &uestion is6 #t see%s to %e that the co%%ittee report does not indicate which body should pro%ulgate the rules that shall go+ern the Electoral Tribunal and the Co%%ission on !ppoint%ents' )ho shall then pro%ulgate the rules of these bodiesI $3' ,!"#,E' The Electoral Tribunal itself will establish and pro%ulgate its rules because it is a body distinct and independent already fro% the 4ouse and so with the Co%%ission on !ppoint%ents also' #t will ha+e the authority to pro%ulgate its own rules' 1n another point of discussion relati+e to the grant of /udicial power but e&ually cogent we listen to for%er Chief 5ustice 3oberto Concepcion6 $3' S.!3EJ' Than@ you' )ould the Co%%issioner not consider that +iolati+e of the doctrine of separation of powersI $3' C1-CEPC#1-' # thin@ Co%%issioner 7ernas e*plained that this is a contest between two parties' This is a /udicial power' $3' S.!3EJ' )e @now but practically the Co%%ittee is gi+ing to the /udiciary the right to declare who will be the President of our country which to %e is a political action' $3' C1-CEPC#1-' There are legal rights which are enforceable under the law and these are essentially /usticiable &uestions'

$3' S.!3EJ' #f the election contest pro+ed to be long burdenso%e and tedious practically all the ti%e of the Supre%e Court sitting en banc would be occupied with it considering that they will be going o+er %illions and %illions of ballots or election returns $ada% President' Echoing the sa%e senti%ent and affir%ing the grant of /udicial power to the Supre%e Court 5ustice 2lorenz ,' 3egalado and 2r' 5oa&uin 7ernas both opined6 $3' "#LL!C13T!' Than@ you +ery %uch $ada% President' # a% not sure whether Co%%issioner Suarez has e*pressed his point' 1n page = the fourth paragraph of Section 4 pro+ides6 The Supre%e Court sitting en banc shall be the sole /udge of all contests relating to the election returns and &ualifications of the President or "ice0President' $ay # see@ clarification as to whether or not the %atter of deter%ining the outco%e of the contests relating to the election returns and &ualifications of the President or "ice0President is purely a political %atter and therefore should not be left entirely to the /udiciary' )ill the abo+e0&uoted pro+ision not i%pinge on the doctrine of separation of powers between the e*ecuti+e and the /udicial depart%ents of the go+ern%entI $3' 3E8!L!,1' -o # really do not feel that would be a proble%' This is a new pro+ision incidentally' #t was not in the 9:>G Constitution nor in the 9:D> Constitution' $3' "#LL!C13T!' That is right' $3' 3E8!L!,1' )e feel that it will not be an intrusion into the separation of powers guaranteed to the /udiciary because this is strictly an ad+ersarial and /udicial proceeding' $3' "#LL!C13T!' $ay # @now the rationale of the Co%%ittee because this supersedes 3epublic !ct D:G? which pro+ides for the Presidential Electoral TribunalI 23' 7E3-!S' Precisely this is necessary' Election contests are by their nature /udicial' Therefore they are cognizable only by courts' #f for instance we did not ha+e a constitutional pro+ision on an electoral tribunal for the Senate or an electoral tribunal for the 4ouse nor%ally as co%posed that cannot be gi+en /urisdiction o+er contests' So the bac@ground of this is really the case of 3o*as +' Lopez' The 8entle%an will re%e%ber that in that election Lopez was declared winner' 4e filed a protest before the Supre%e Court because there was a republic act which created the Supre%e Court as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal' The &uestion in this case was whether new powers could be gi+en the Supre%e Court by law' #n effect the conflict was actually whether there was an atte%pt to create two Supre%e Courts and the answer of the Supre%e Court was6 A-o this did not in+ol+e the creation of two Supre%e Courts but precisely we are gi+ing new /urisdiction to the Supre%e Court as it is allowed by the Constitution' Congress %ay allocate +arious /urisdictions'E 7efore the passage of that republic act in case there was any contest between two presidential candidates or two +ice0presidential candidates no one had /urisdiction o+er it' So it beca%e necessary to create a Presidential Electoral Tribunal' )hat we ha+e done is to constitutionalize what was statutory but it is not an infringe%ent on the separation of powers because the power being gi+en to the Supre%e Court is a /udicial power' .n%ista@able fro% the foregoing is that the e*ercise of our power to /udge presidential and +ice0presidential election contests as well as the rule0%a@ing power ad/unct thereto is plenary; it is not as restricti+e as petitioner would interpret it' #n fact for%er Chief 5ustice 4ilario 8' ,a+ide 5r' who proposed the insertion of the phrase intended the Supre%e Court to e*ercise e*clusi+e authority to pro%ulgate its rules of procedure for that purpose' To this 5ustice 3egalado forthwith assented and then e%phasized that the sole power ought to be without inter+ention by the legislati+e depart%ent' E+idently e+en the legislature cannot li%it the /udicial power to resol+e presidential and +ice0presidential election contests and our rule0%a@ing power connected thereto' To foreclose all argu%ents of petitioner we reiterate that the establish%ent of the PET si%ply constitutionalized what was statutory before the 9:<D Constitution' The e*periential conte*t of the PET in our country cannot be denied'E4

Stubbornly despite the e*plicit reference of the $e%bers of the Constitutional Co%%ission to a Presidential Electoral Tribunal with 2r' 5oa&uin 7ernas categorically declaring that in crafting the last paragraph of Section 4 !rticle "## of the Constitution they AconstitutionalizeBdC what was statutory E petitioner continues to insist that the last paragraph of Section 4 !rticle "## of the Constitution does not pro+ide for the creation of the PET' Petitioner is ada%ant that Athe fact that Bthe pro+isionC does not e*pressly prohibit BtheC creation Bof the PETC is not an authority for the Supre%e Court to create the sa%e'E Petitioner is going to town under the %isplaced assu%ption that the te*t of the pro+ision itself was the only basis for this Court to sustain the PETFs constitutionality' )e reiterate that the PET is authorized by the last paragraph of Section 4 !rticle "## of the Constitution and as supported by the discussions of the $e%bers of the Constitutional Co%%ission which drafted the present Constitution' The e*plicit reference by the fra%ers of our Constitution to constitutionalizing what was %erely statutory before is not diluted by the absence of a phrase line or word %andating the Supre%e Court to create a Presidential Electoral Tribunal' Suffice it to state that the Constitution +erbose as it already is cannot contain the specific wording re&uired by petitioner in order for hi% to accept the constitutionality of the PET' #n our ,ecision we clarified the structure of the PET6 A7e that as it %ay we hasten to clarify the structure of the PET as a legiti%ate progeny of Section 4 !rticle "## of the Constitution co%posed of %e%bers of the Supre%e Court sitting en banc' The following e*change in the 9:<; Constitutional Co%%ission should pro+ide enlighten%ent6 $3' S.!3EJ' Than@ you' Let %e proceed to line => page = wherein it is pro+ided and # &uote6 The Supre%e Court sitting en bancB C shall be the sole /udge of all contests relating to the election returns and &ualifications of the President or "ice0President' !re we not gi+ing enor%ous wor@ to the Supre%e Court especially when it is directed to sit en banc as the sole /udge of all presidential and +ice0presidential election contestsI $3' S.$.L1-8' That &uestion will be referred to Co%%issioner Concepcion' $3' C1-CEPC#1-' This function was discharged by the Supre%e Court twice and the Supre%e Court was able to dispose of each case in a period of one year as pro+ided by law' 1f course that was probably during the late 9:;?s and early 9:D?s' # do not @now how the present Supre%e Court would react to such circu%stances but there is also the &uestion of who else would hear the election protests' $3' S.!3EJ' )e are as@ing this &uestion because between lines => to =G there are no rules pro+ided for the hearings and there is not ti%e li%it or duration for the election contest to be decided by the Supre%e Court' !lso we will ha+e to consider the historical bac@ground that when 3'!' 9D:> which organized the Presidential Electoral Tribunal was pro%ulgated on 5une =9 9:GD at least three fa%ous election contests were presented and two of the% ended up in withdrawal by the protestants out of sheer frustration because of the delay in the resolution of the cases' # a% referring to the electoral protest that was lodged by for%er President Carlos P' 8arcia against our A@abalenE for%er President ,iosdado $acapagal in 9:;9 and the +ice0presidential election contest filed by the late Senator 8erardo 3o*as against "ice0President 2ernando Lopez in 9:;G' $3' C1-CEPC#1-' # cannot answer for what the protestants had in %ind' 7ut when that protest of Senator 3o*as was withdrawn the results were already a+ailable' Senator 3o*as did not want to ha+e a decision ad+erse to hi%' The +otes were being counted already and he did not get what he e*pected so rather than ha+e a decision ad+erse to his protest he withdrew the case' **** $3' S.!3EJ' # see' So the Co%%ission would not ha+e any ob/ection to +esting in the Supre%e Court this %atter of resol+ing presidential and +ice0presidential contestsI $3' C1-CEPC#1-' Personally # would not ha+e any ob/ection' $3' S.!3EJ' Than@ you'

)ould the Co%%issioner not consider that +iolati+e of the doctrine of separation of powersI $3' C1-CEPC#1-' # thin@ Co%%issioner 7ernas e*plained that this is a contest between two parties' This is a /udicial power' $3' S.!3EJ' )e @now but practically the Co%%ittee is gi+ing to the /udiciary the right to declare who will be the President of our country which to %e is a political action' $3' C1-CEPC#1-' There are legal rights which are enforceable under the law and these are essentially /usticiable &uestions' $3' S.!3EJ' #f the election contest pro+ed to be long burdenso%e and tedious practically all the ti%e of the Supre%e Court sitting en banc would be occupied with it considering that they will be going o+er %illions and %illions of ballots or election returns $ada% President' $3' C1-CEPC#1-' The ti%e consu%ed or to be consu%ed in this contest for President is dependent upon they @ey nu%ber of tea%s of re+isors' # ha+e no e*perience insofar as contests in other offices are concerned' $3' S.!3EJ' !lthough there is a re&uire%ent here that the Supre%e Court is %andated to sit en bancI $3' C1-CEPC#1-' Hes' $3' S.!3EJ' # see' $3' C1-CEPC#1-' The steps in+ol+ed in this contest are6 2irst the ballot bo*es are opened before tea%s of three generally a representati+e each of the court of the protestant and of the Aprotestee'E #t is all a &uestions of how %any tea%s are organized' 1f course that can be e*pensi+e but it would be e*pensi+e whate+er court one would choose' There were ti%es that the Supre%e Court with so%eti%es G? tea%s at the sa%e ti%e wor@ing would classify the ob/ections the @ind of proble%s and the court would only go o+er the ob/ected +otes on which the parties could not agree' So it is not as aweso%e as it would appear insofar as the Court is concerned' )hat is aweso%e is the cost of the re+ision of the ballots because each party would ha+e to appoint one representati+e for e+ery tea% and that %ay ta@e &uite a big a%ount' $3' S.!3EJ' #f we draw fro% the Co%%issionerFs e*perience which he is sharing with us what would be the reasonable period for the election contest to be decidedI $3' C1-CEPC#1-' #nsofar as the Supre%e Court is concerned the Supre%e Court always %anages to dispose of the case in one year' $3' S.!3EJ' #n one year' Than@ you for the clarification'EG 5udicial power granted to the Supre%e Court by the sa%e Constitution is plenary' !nd under the doctrine of necessary i%plication the additional /urisdiction bestowed by the last paragraph of Section 4 !rticle "## of the Constitution to decide presidential and +ice0presidential elections contests includes the %eans necessary to carry it into effect' Thus6 A1b+ious fro% the foregoing is the intent to bestow independence to the Supre%e Court as the PET to underta@e the 4erculean tas@ of deciding election protests in+ol+ing presidential and +ice0presidential candidates in accordance with the process outlined by for%er Chief 5ustice 3oberto Concepcion' #t was %ade in response to the concern aired by delegate 5ose E' Suarez that the additional duty %ay pro+e too burdenso%e for the Supre%e Court' This e*plicit grant of independence and of the plenary powers needed to discharge this burden /ustifies the budget allocation of the PET' The confer%ent of additional /urisdiction to the Supre%e Court with the duty characterized as an Aaweso%eE tas@ includes the %eans necessary to carry it into effect under the doctrine of necessary i%plication' )e cannot o+ere%phasize that the abstraction of the PET fro% the e*plicit grant of power to the Supre%e Court gi+en our abundant e*perience is not unwarranted' ! plain reading of !rticle "## Section 4 paragraph D readily re+eals a grant of authority to the Supre%e Court sitting en banc' #n the sa%e +ein although the %ethod by which the Supre%e Court e*ercises this authority is not specified in the pro+ision the grant of power does not contain any li%itation on the Supre%e CourtFs e*ercise thereof' The Supre%e CourtFs %ethod of deciding presidential and +ice0presidential election contests through the PET is actually a deri+ati+e of the e*ercise of the prerogati+e conferred by the afore&uoted

constitutional pro+ision' Thus the subse&uent directi+e in the pro+ision for the Supre%e Court to Apro%ulgate its rules for the purpose'E The confer%ent of full authority to the Supre%e Court as a PET is e&ui+alent to the full authority conferred upon the electoral tribunals of the Senate and the 4ouse of 3epresentati+es i'e' the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) and the 4ouse of 3epresentati+es Electoral Tribunal (43ET) which we ha+e affir%ed on nu%erous occasions'E -e*t petitioner still clai%s that the PET e*ercises &uasi0/udicial power and thus its %e%bers +iolate the proscription in Section 9= !rticle "### of the Constitution which reads6 ASEC'9='The $e%bers of the Supre%e Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency perfor%ing &uasi0/udicial or ad%inistrati+e functions'E )e dispose of this argu%ent as we ha+e done in our ,ecision +iz'6 AThe traditional grant of /udicial power is found in Section 9 !rticle "### of the Constitution which pro+ides that the power Ashall be +ested in one Supre%e Court and in such lower courts as %ay be established by law'E Consistent with our presidential syste% of go+ern%ent the function of Adealing with the settle%ent of disputes contro+ersies or conflicts in+ol+ing rights duties or prerogati+es that are legally de%andable and enforceableE is apportioned to courts of /ustice' )ith the ad+ent of the 9:<D Constitution /udicial power was e*panded to include Athe duty of the courts of /ustice to settle actual contro+ersies in+ol+ing rights which are legally de%andable and enforceable and to deter%ine whether or not there has been a gra+e abuse of discretion a%ounting to lac@ or e*cess of /urisdiction on the part of any branch or instru%entality of the 8o+ern%ent'E The power was e*panded but it re%ained absolute' The set up e%bodied in the Constitution and statutes characterizes the resolution of electoral contests as essentially an e*ercise of /udicial power' !t the barangay and %unicipal le+els original and e*clusi+e /urisdiction o+er election contests is +ested in the %unicipal or %etropolitan trial courts and the regional trial courts respecti+ely' !t the higher le+els(city pro+incial and regional as well as congressional and senatorial(e*clusi+e and original /urisdiction is lodged in the C1$ELEC and in the 4ouse of 3epresentati+es and Senate Electoral Tribunals which are not strictly and literally spea@ing courts of law' !lthough not courts of law they are nonetheless e%powered to resol+e election contests which in+ol+e in essence an e*ercise of /udicial power because of the e*plicit constitutional e%power%ent found in Section =(=) !rticle #K0C (for the C1$ELEC) and Section 9D !rticle "# (for the Senate and 4ouse Electoral Tribunals) of the Constitution' 7esides when the C1$ELEC the 43ET and the SET decide election contests their decisions are still sub/ect to /udicial re+iew (+ia a petition for certiorari filed by the proper party(if there is a showing that the decision was rendered with gra+e abuse of discretion tanta%ount to lac@ or e*cess of /urisdiction' #t is also beyond ca+il that when the Supre%e Court as PET resol+es a presidential or +ice0presidential election contest it perfor%s what is essentially a /udicial power' #n the land%ar@ case of !ngara +' Electoral Co%%ission 5ustice 5ose P' Laurel enucleated that Ait would be inconcei+able if the Constitution had not pro+ided for a %echanis% by which to direct the course of go+ern%ent along constitutional channels'E #n fact !ngara pointed out that ABtChe Constitution is a definition of the powers of go+ern%ent'E !nd yet at that ti%e the 9:>G Constitution did not contain the e*panded definition of /udicial power found in !rticle "### Section 9 paragraph = of the present Constitution' )ith the e*plicit pro+ision the present Constitution has allocated to the Supre%e Court in con/unction with latterFs e*ercise of /udicial power inherent in all courts the tas@ of deciding presidential and +ice0presidential election contests with full authority in the e*ercise thereof' The power wielded by PET is a deri+ati+e of the plenary /udicial power allocated to courts of law e*pressly pro+ided in the Constitution' 1n the whole the Constitution draws a thin but ne+ertheless distinct line between the PET and the Supre%e Court' #f the logic of petitioner is to be followed all $e%bers of the Court sitting in the Senate and 4ouse Electoral Tribunals would +iolate the constitutional proscription found in Section 9= !rticle "###' Surely the petitioner will be a%ong the first to ac@nowledge that this is not so' The Constitution which in Section 9D !rticle "# e*plicitly pro+ides that three Supre%e Court 5ustices shall sit in the Senate and 4ouse Electoral Tribunals respecti+ely effecti+ely e*e%pts the 5ustices0$e%bers thereof fro% the prohibition in Section 9= !rticle "###' #n the sa%e +ein it is the Constitution itself in Section 4 !rticle "## which e*e%pts the $e%bers of the Court constituting the PET fro% the sa%e prohibition'

)e ha+e pre+iously declared that the PET is not si%ply an agency to which $e%bers of the Court were designated' 1nce again the PET as intended by the fra%ers of the Constitution is to be an institution independent but not separate fro% the /udicial depart%ent i'e' the Supre%e Court' $cCulloch +' State of $aryland proclai%ed that ABaC power without the %eans to use it is a nullity'E The +ehicle for the e*ercise of this power as intended by the Constitution and specifically %entioned by the Constitutional Co%%issioners during the discussions on the grant of power to this Court is the PET' Thus a %icroscopic +iew li@e the petitionerFs should not constrict an absolute and constitutional grant of /udicial power'ED 2inally petitionerFs application of our decision in 7iraogo +' Philippine Truth Co%%ission< to the present case is an un%itigated &uantu% leap' The decision therein held that the PTC Afinds /ustification under Section 9D !rticle "## of the Constitution'E ! plain reading of the constitutional pro+isions i'e' last paragraph of Section 4 and Section 9D both of !rticle "## on the E*ecuti+e 7ranch re+eals that the two are differently worded and deal with separate powers of the E*ecuti+e and the 5udicial 7ranches of go+ern%ent' !nd as pre+iously ad+erted to the basis for the constitution of the PET was in fact %entioned in the deliberations of the $e%bers of the Constitutional Co%%ission during the drafting of the present Constitution' )4E3E213E the $otion for 3econsideration is ,E-#E,' 1ur ,ecision in 8'3' -o' 9:9;9< ST!-,S' S1 13,E3E,'