Drilon’s LP wing goes to SC vs De Venecia on CA seat

The Liberal Party-Drilon wing has elevated to the Supreme Court its complaint against the decision of Speaker Jose de Venecia to deny the party its one-seat representation in the Commission on Appointments (CA) as provided for in the “proportional party representation” rule of the 1987 Constitution.

In a 34-page petition filed last Oct. 30 by lawyers Wilfred Asis and Pacito Pineda on behalf of party president Franklin Drilon and the 23 LP members in the House of Representatives, the LP asked the Court to compel the CA leadership to reorganize its roster and install Oriental Mindoro Rep. Alfonso Umali as the LP representative in the House CA contingent.

The 23 LP members in the House signed the petition.

In the petition, the LP also asked the SC to issue a Temporary Restraining Order and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction against the CA from proceeding with its functions in view of its alleged “illegal and unconstitutional” composition that violated “the rule on proportional representation of political parties.”

Quezon Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III, head of the LP contingent in the House, said the party was forced to elevate the complaint before the Supreme Court after De Venecia refused to explain why the House leadership ignored the nomination of Umali as LP representative based on the proportional representation for the commission’s membership as provided in the Constitution.

In its present composition, the House contingent to the CA has six members from the Lakas-CMD (Christian Muslim Democrats), three from Kampi (Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino), two from the Nationalist People’s Coalition, and one from the opposition bloc.

With 23 members in the House, Tañada said the LP was entitled to at least one seat in the House CA contingent under a “mathematical formula on proportional party representation” set by the Supreme Court in its decision on the “Guingona Jr. versus Gonzalez” case.

Drilon, immediate past Senate president and CA chairman, said the High Court’s ruling stating that the rule on proportional representation of political parties as provided in the Constitution “was mandatory in character and does not leave any discretion to the majority party to disobey or disregard.”

Named as respondents in the case were De Venecia, House Majority Leader Arthur Defensor Jr., Senate President and CA chairman Manuel Villar and the current members of the CA.