To ensure the speedy resolution of electoral cases, the consultative committee (Con-com) reviewing the 1987 Constitution wants to abolish all three separate electoral tribunals to replace them with one court called the Federal Electoral Tribunal (FET), composed of 15 justices, all election experts.
The proposed FET setup by Con-com closely resembles the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) composition. At present, it is the Supreme Court (SC) with 15 justices who sit at the PET.
However, the Con-com is considering imposing stricter qualifications for a FET member: He or she must be a recognized election expert, has been for 15 years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law, and at the time of appointment is at least 50 years old.
The Philippines currently has two other electoral tribunals, which differ from the PET setup.
Both the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) have members of their chambers sitting in their respective tribunals on the basis of proportional representation of political parties.
The SC, sitting as the PET, is currently manually recounting the votes for the election protest of former Sen. Ferdinand R. “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. against Vice President Maria Leonor G. Robredo.
The FET under Con-com’s proposal will be composed of one presiding justice and 14 associate justices.
It has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relating to the election returns and qualifications of the President, Vice President, members of Congress, including senators and representatives, regional governors and regional deputy governors.
Con-com member and former Supreme Court Associate Justice Eduardo B. Nachura said they proposed this setup with the aim of having an “honest, down-to-earth discussion of an election case.”
“Let’s have the judges and justices do that for us,” said Nachura, who is also the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Structure of Federal Government.
Nachura, who has sat on all three electoral tribunals, said there is a tendency, especially in the HRET and SET, for a member of the electoral tribunal who belongs to a political party to decide in favor of the party if the electoral case involves a member of his political party.
“It does not happen all the time and this is not a judgment of the members of the House of Representatives or the Senate but it is human nature,” he said. “This time, we are saying no such bias or discrimination may exist.”
With this proposal, he added, the load of deciding on the electoral cases will be relieved from the Supreme Court and at the same time ensure that there is an election law expert who will decide on these cases.