Supreme court petition for mandamus 12 oct 2016 by myinquirer dotnet

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila REP. TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR., REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, REP. RAUL A. DAZA, REP. EDGAR R. ERICE, REP. EMMANUEL A. BILLONES, REP. TOMASITO S. VILLARIN AND REP. GARY C. ALEJANO,

PETITIONERS - versus -

G.R. No. __________ (Petition for Mandamus)

SPEAKER PANTALEON D. ALVAREZ, MAJORITY LEADER RODOLFO C. FARIÑAS AND REP. DANILO E. SUAREZ,

RESPONDENTS. x-----------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR MANDAMUS PETITIONERS, through counsel, respectfully submit the instant Petition for Mandamus based on the following presentation:

I. NATURE OF THE PETITION 1. This is a special civil action for Mandamus to compel the Respondents Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez and Majority Leader Rodolfo C. Fariñas to recognize Petitioner Rep. Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Jr. as Minority Leader of the 17 th Congress of the House of Representatives after the said Respondents unlawfully neglected to recognize Petitioner Baguilat, Jr. as Minority Leader and excluded said Petitioner Rep. Baguilat, Jr. from his rightful and automatic position as Minority Leader after garnering the second highest number of votes and being the clear runner-up in the speakership contest, which entitlement is consistent with the long unbroken tradition of the House of Representatives wherein the clear second

placer in the speakership contest automatically becomes and is recognized as Minority Leader. 2. The aforenamed Respondent officials of the House of Representatives on 15 August 2016 unlawfully “recognized” Respondent Rep. Danilo E. Suarez as the “Minority Leader” even as the latter garnered only the third highest number of votes and was “elected” in a contrived and illegally convened meeting of principally spurious members of the minority. 3. Petitioner Rep. Baguilat, Jr. and the other Petitioners who voted for Rep. Baguilat, Jr. do not have any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, except the filing of the instant Verified Petition for Mandamus. 4. Any appeal or recourse to the Plenary would be an exercise in futility in view of the overriding numerical superiority of the supermajority in the House of Representatives. 5. This Petition for Mandamus is seasonably filed today, 14 October 2016, which is the 60th day from 15 August 2016 when Respondent Majority Leader Rodolfo Fariñas, acting on his behalf and on behalf of Respondent Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, arbitrarily and unlawfully recognized Respondent Rep. Danilo Suarez as “minority leader”, as recorded in Journal No. 10 dated 15 August 2016, to the exclusion of the legitimate and duly elected Minority Leader – Petitioner Rep. Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Jr.

II. THE PARTIES 6. Petitioner Rep. Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Jr. is the duly elected Representative of the Lone District of Ifugao to the 17 th Congress. He may be served with the processes of the Honorable Supreme Court at N-315 House of Representatives, Batasan Complex, Quezon City. He is the legitimate and duly elected Minority Leader of the 17th Congress of the House of Representatives. 7. Petitioner Rep. Edcel C. Lagman is the duly elected Representative of the First District of Albay to the current 17 th Congress. He may be served with the processes of the Honorable Court at N-411 House of Representatives, Batasan Complex, Quezon City.

8. Petitioner Rep. Raul A. Daza is the duly elected Representative of the First District of Northern Samar to the 17 th Congress. He may be served with the processes of the Honorable Supreme Court at S-517 House of Representatives, Batasan Complex, Quezon City. 9. Petitioner Rep. Edgar R. Erice is the duly elected Representative of the Second District of Caloocan to the 17 th Congress. He may be served with the processes of the Honorable Supreme Court at N-107 House of Representatives, Batasan Complex, Quezon City. 10. Petitioner Rep. Emmanuel A. Billones is the duly elected Representative of the First District of Capiz to the 17 th Congress. He may be served with the processes of the Honorable Supreme Court at N-215 House of Representatives, Batasan Complex, Quezon City. 11. Petitioner Rep. Tomasito S. Villarin is the duly elected Representative of partylist Akbayan Citizensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Action Party to the 17 th Congress. He may be served with the processes of the Honorable Supreme Court at S-513 House of Representatives, Batasan Complex, Quezon City. 12. Petitioner Rep. Gary C. Alejano is the duly elected Representative of partylist Magdalo to the 17th Congress. He may be served with the processes of the Honorable Supreme Court at S-114 House of Representatives, Batasan Complex, Quezon City. 13. In addition to Petitioner Rep. Baguilat, Jr., all the other Petitioners herein voted for Petitioner Rep. Baguilat, Jr., including Rep. Rodante Marcoleta, in the election for Speaker on 25 July 2016, the opening of the 17th Congress. They are entitled to be recognized as the genuine and legitimate members of the House Minority and given membership in the powerful Committee on Rules and other major committees. 14. Respondent Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez is the duly elected Speaker of the 17th Congress of the House of Representatives. He may be served with summons and other processes of the Honorable Supreme Court at the Office of the Speaker, 2nd Floor, Main Building, House of Representatives, Batasan Complex, Quezon City. 15. Respondent Majority Leader Rodolfo C. FariĂąas is the duly elected Majority Leader of the 17th Congress of the House of 3

Representatives. He may be served with summons and other processes of the Honorable Supreme Court at the Office of the Majority Leader, First Floor, Main Building, House of Representatives, Batasan Complex, Quezon City. 16. Respondent Rep. Danilo E. Suarez is the duly elected Representative of the First District of Quezon to the 17 th Congress. He may be served with summons and other processes of the Honorable Supreme Court at N-401, House of Representatives, Batasan Complex, Quezon City. He is impleaded as party respondent because he is the beneficiary of the challenged arbitrary and unlawful acts of Respondents Speaker Alvarez and Majority Leader Fariñas.

III. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 17. The renowned French political thinker and historian Alexis de Tocqueville said “the majority not only makes the laws but can break them as well.” It is for this reason that the Minority exists and must flourish. 18. The herein Petitioners constitute the authentic Minority in the House of Representatives. Their aggrupation is the alternative to the existence of an opposition political party which has been decimated by the forging of an all-party supermajority. 19. The present leadership of the so-called minority in the House of Representatives is coopted by the supermajority, as in fact Respondent Minority Leader Danilo Suarez has been handpicked and chosen by the majority coalition – a eunuch of an opposition. 20. To truly discharge its role as opposition, the minority must be credible, an indispensable attribute which the Majority’s “minority leader” does not possess. 21. The supermajority’s selection of its own “minority leader” violated the following fundamental tenets of a democracy: (a)

One of the hallmarks of a democratic legislature is the existence and preservation of a credible, vigilant, courageous and reasonable Minority.

(b)

The Congress is not an assembly of the majority only. It is a parliament of duly mandated Representatives, 4

including the minority whose inalienable rights of free expression and dissent must be respected. (c)

There is need for an independent Minority who shall hold the government to account for its commissions and omissions.

(d)

An authentic Minority serves as a watchdog reining in government excesses and holding the government of the day accountable to the people.

(e)

A genuine opposition will be able to debate legislation vigorously in the legislative committees and the plenary by opposing measures which are violative of the Constitution or inimical to the people’s welfare even as it introduces perfecting amendments to basically sound legislative proposals.

(f)

A legitimate Minority espouses alternative policies and views which are more responsible and responsive than the flawed importuning of the Majority.

(g)

A true Minority is the sounding board for popular consensus or dissent even as it is the mouthpiece of the marginalized and the disadvantaged sectors.

22. All of the foregoing principles were shattered when the leadership of the supermajority in the House of Representatives inveigled and contrived in installing a docile “minority leader”. 23. The alliance of the supermajority and the subservient “minority leader” in the House of Representatives is a chemistry fatal to the democratic process. 24. The instant Petition is interposed directly with the Honorable Supreme Court as an exception to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts since the Petition is impressed with primacy of public interest and transcendental issues, consistent with the rulings of the Honorable Supreme Court in Enrile vs. Salazar (186 SCRA 217); Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff (133 SCRA 800); Yong Chan Kim vs. People (176 SCRA 277); Republic vs. Court of Appeals (107 SCRA 504); and Tatad vs. Secretary of the Department of Energy, (281 SCRA 330). 25. The instant Petition is outside the ambit of the doctrine of “political question” which is becoming almost extinct in the light of 5

the following relevant and instructive rulings of the Honorable Supreme Court: (a)

In the case of Marcos vs. Manglapus (G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989), it was held that: “The present Constitution limits resort to the political question doctrine and broadens the scope of judicial inquiry into areas which the Court, under previous constitutions, would have normally left to the political departments to decide.”

(b)

In Daza vs. Singson (G.R. No. 86344, December 21, 1989) it was also held that: “In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objection becomes even less tenable and decisive. The reason is that, even if we were to assume that the issue presented before us was political in nature, we would still not be precluded from resolving it under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us that now covers, in proper cases, even the political question. Article VIII, Section 1, of the Constitution clearly provides: ‘Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. ‘Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.’ ”

(c)

In Coseteng vs. Mitra, Jr. 1990), it further held that:

(G.R. No. 86649, July 12,

“The ‘political question’ issue was settled in Daza vs. Singson, G.R. No. 86344, December 21, 1989, where this Court ruled that ‘the legality, and not the wisdom, of the manner of filing the 6

Commission on Appointments as prescribed by the Constitution’ is justiciable, and, "even if the question were political in nature, it would still come within our powers of review under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us by Article VIII, Section 1, of the Constitution, which includes the authority to determine whether grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction has been committed by any branch or instrumentality of the government.’ ” (d)

In Estrada vs. Desierto (G.R. No. 146710-15, March 2, 2001) it was pronounced that: “To a great degree, the 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine when it expanded the power of judicial review of this court not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. Heretofore, the judiciary has focused on the "thou shalt not's" of the Constitution directed against the exercise of its jurisdiction. With the new provision, however, courts are given a greater prerogative to determine what it can do to prevent grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. Clearly, the new provision did not just grant the Court power of doing nothing. xxx

xxx

“Needless to state, the cases at bar pose legal and not political questions. The principal issues for resolution require the proper interpretation of certain provisions in the 1987 Constitution, notably section 1 of Article II, and section 8 of Article VII, and the allocation of governmental powers under section 11 of Article VII. The issues likewise call for a ruling on the scope of presidential immunity from suit. They also involve the correct calibration of the right of petitioner against prejudicial publicity. As 7

early as the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the doctrine has been laid down that ‘it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is . . .’ Thus, respondent's invocation of the doctrine of political question is but a foray in the dark.” (e)

In Belgica et al. vs. Hon. Executive Secretary, et al. (G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013) the Supreme Court reiterated that: “To a great degree, the 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine when it expanded the power of judicial review of this court not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. Heretofore, the judiciary has focused on the "thou shalt not's" of the Constitution directed against the exercise of its jurisdiction. With the new provision, however, courts are given a greater prerogative to determine what it can do to prevent grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. Clearly, the new provision did not just grant the Court power of doing nothing.”

(f)

In the Diocese of Bacolod, et al. vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015) it was also enunciated that: “The concept of a political question, however, never precludes judicial review when the act of a constitutional organ infringes upon a fundamental individual or collective right. Even assuming arguendo that the COMELEC did have the discretion to choose the manner of regulation of the tarpaulin in question, it cannot do so by abridging the fundamental right to expression.

xxx

“To be sure, the force to impugn the jurisdiction of this Court becomes more feeble in light of the new Constitution which expanded the definition of judicial power as including ‘the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.’ As well observed by retired Justice Isagani Cruz, this expanded definition of judicial power considerably constricted the scope of political question. He opined that the language luminously suggests that this duty (and power) is available even against the executive and legislative departments including the President and the Congress, in the exercise of their discretionary powers.” (Emphasis supplied). 26. Verily, the justiciability of the instant Petition is anchored on the grave arbitrary and unlawful act committed by Respondent Speaker Alvarez and Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas in neglecting and refusing to recognize, amounting to grave abuse, Petitioner Rep. Teddy Baguilat, Jr. as the duly elected Minority Leader and instead recognizing their anointed Majority’s “minority leader” – Respondent Rep. Suarez. Respondents Speaker Alvarez and Majority Leader Fariñas utterly refused and neglected to perform a plain ministerial duty of recognizing Petitioner Rep. Teddy Baguilat, Jr. as Minority Leader. 27. The second paragraph of Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution pertinently provides that “Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.” (Emphasis supplied). The controversy at bar involves the right of Petitioner Rep. Baguilat, Jr. to be recognized as the duly elected Minority Leader of the 17th Congress, which right is legally demandable and enforceable. 28. Aforesaid Respondents, particularly Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas, deliberately misconstrued and misapplied, amounting

to grave abuse, the pertinent rules of the House in order to realize the supermajority’s scheme to install their chosen “minority leader” Respondent Rep. Suarez.

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND RESTATEMENT OF THE PERTINENT RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 29. Shortly after the 09 May 2016 elections, Rep. Danilo Suarez encamped in Davao City, the then center of political activities and maneuverings of President-elect Rodrigo R. Duterte and his men. 30. Rep. Suarez publicly and unabashedly announced that he was seeking the adoption or anointment by the Duterte administration as minority leader in the House of Representatives because he would be leading a “cooperative” minority. Attached as ANNEXES “A”, “A-1”, “A-2”, “A-3”, and “A-4” are printouts of the relevant news accounts. 31. Rep. Suarez went to the extent of making pronouncements on behalf of President-elect Duterte announcing in a forum Duterte’s preference for the re-imposition of the death penalty, a key component of the President’s platform. He also declared that the President targets the execution of 50 convicts a month and estimated that the death penalty bill would be passed by the House in three to four months. Rep. Suarez even recommended that former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, now Representative of the Second District of Pampanga, be named Chairperson of either the Committee on Trade and Industry or the Committee on Economic Affairs. For one who intends to be Minority Leader as a counterpoise to the majority and the administration, such pronouncements are grossly inappropriate, even ingratiating. Attached as ANNEXES “B”, “B-1”, “B-2”, “B-3” and “B-4” are printouts of the relevant news accounts. 32. In the weeks preceding the opening of the 17 th Congress on 25 July 2016, incessant reports were afloat, which were not seriously denied, that the supermajority coalition would lend to Rep. Suarez some of the majority partisans to beef up his small number of minority congressmen to assure his election as the House Minority Leader. Attached as ANNEXES “C”, “C-1”, “C-2”, and “C-3” are printouts of the relevant news accounts.

33. Consistent with the alliance of Respondent Rep. Suarez and the supermajority coalition in the House, as early as 01 July 2016 Respondent Rep. Suarez principally authored, together with Respondent Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez and Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas, key administration measures. Respondent Rep. Suarez is a principal author of H.B. No. 1 reinstituting capital punishment (the list of principal authors and Explanatory Note of H.B. No. 1 are contained in ANNEX “D”), H.B. No. 3 granting emergency powers to the President to address the traffic mess (the list of principal authors and Explanatory Note of H.B. No. 3 are reflected in ANNEX “E”) and later House Resolution No. 105 calling for the investigation linking Sen. Leila de Lima to the proliferation of drug syndicates in the New Bilibid Prison (a copy of H.R. No. 105 is attached as ANNEX “F”). In fact out of the 15 bills filed by Respondent Speaker Alvarez, Respondent Rep. Suarez is a principal author of 11 of them or three-fourths of all the bills filed by the Speaker. 34. A few days before 25 July 2016, then incoming Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez met with former Vice President Jejomar Binay together with the latter’s United Nationalist Alliance (UNA) party mates, Rep. Suarez and Rep. Toby Tiangco, who was also interested in the House minority leadership. In said meeting, Respondent Alvarez categorically stated that his choice for minority leader was Rep. Suarez. Attached as ANNEXES “G”, “G-1”, “G-2” and “G-3” are printouts of the relevant news accounts. 35. In view of Respondent Alvarez’s preference for Respondent Rep. Suarez, Rep. Tiangco decided not to seek the minority leadership, cast a “no vote” in the speakership contest, and finally resigned from UNA and is now an independent member of the House. 36. During the opening session on 25 July 2016, the Rules of the House of the 16th Congress were provisionally adopted as the Rules of the 17th Congress. Attached as ANNEX “H” is a copy of Journal No. 1 dated 25 July 2016 and ANNEX “H-1” is the page reflecting said adoption. 37. Prior to the election for Speaker during the plenary session on 25 July 2016, an apparently pre-arranged interchange between Rep. Jose Atienza and Respondent Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas, then acting Floor Leader, ensued wherein Rep. Atienza elicited from Respondent Fariñas the following:

a. All those who vote for the winning Speaker shall belong to the Majority and those who vote for other candidates for Speaker shall belong to the Minority; b. Those who abstain from voting shall be considered part of the Minority; and c. The Minority Leader shall be elected by the members of the Minority. (ANNEX “H-2” is the page reflecting the interchange). 38. Before the aforesaid interchange between Rep. Atienza and Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas, Rep. Atienza was committed to the group of the Petitioners and even attended their meetings. In the evening of 24 July 2016 he still assured the Petitioners that he was committed to support whoever was the choice of the Petitioners as Minority Leader who would run against Respondent Alvarez. In the morning of 25 July 2016, in a phone conversation initiated by Petitioner Raul Daza, Rep. Atienza still assured Petitioner Daza that his commitment stands. 39. Rep. Atienza eventually voted for Rep. Suarez as recorded in Journal 1 dated 25 July 2016. (Please see Annex “H”). 40. The following is the result of the speakership contest on July 25, 2016 as recorded in Journal No. 1: “With 252 Members voting for Rep. Alvarez (P.), eight voting for Rep. Baguilat, Jr., seven voting for Rep. Suarez, 21 abstaining and one registering a no vote, the Presiding Officer declared Rep. Alvarez (P.) as the duly elected Speaker of the House of Representatives for the 17th Congress.” (ANNEX “H-3” is the page recording the election results). 41. As recorded in the Journal of the opening session, (a) Respondent Rep. Suarez voted for Respondent Speaker Alvarez, the eventual winner for Speaker; (b) Respondent Alvarez abstained; and (c) Petitioner Baguilat, Jr. was the clear runner-up to Speaker Alvarez as he garnered eight votes over Suarez who got seven votes. Consistent with the long-standing tradition of the House, the candidate who garners the second (2 nd) highest number of votes for Speaker automatically becomes the Minority Leader because the contest for Speaker is at the same time the contest for Minority Leader. 42. Petitioner Baguilat, Jr. has not been recognized up to now by the Respondents as the authentic and genuine Minority Leader. On 26 July 2016, Petitioner Lagman delivered a privilege speech 12

questioning why Petitioner Baguilat, Jr. has not been recognized by the Respondents as the Minority Leader. Attached as ANNEX “I” is a true copy of the privilege speech of Petitioner Lagman, ANNEX “I1” is a copy of Journal No. 2 dated 26 July 2016, and ANNEXES “I2” and “I-3” are the pages of the said Journal reflecting the said speech. 43. True to the reports that members of the majority would be lent to Respondent Rep. Suarez to assure his election as Minority Leader and consistent with the statement of Respondent Minority Leader Fariñas that those who abstained from voting in the speakership contest are considered to be Minority members, as recorded in Journal No. 1, the following who are all members of the majority coalition abstained from voting: Name of Representative 1. Abayon, Harlin Neil III J. 2. Aggabao, Ma. Lourdes R. 3. Alonte-Naguiat, Len B. 4. Aragones, Sol 5. Arcillas, Arlene B. 6. Bagatsing, Cristal L. 7. Batocabe, Rodel M. 8. Bernos, Joseph Sto. Niño B. 9. Bertiz, Aniceto "John" III D. 10. Bravo, Anthony M. 11. Cerafica, Arnel M. 12. Chavez, Cecilia Leonila V. 13. Co, Christopher S. 14. Cortuna, Julieta R. 15. De Vera, Eugene Michael B. 16. Eusebio, Richard C. 17. Ferriol-Pascual, Abigail Faye C. 18. Garbin, Alfredo Jr. A. 19. Garcia, Jose Enrique III S. 20. Garin, Sharon S.

Party Affiliation AANGAT TAYO / NP NPC PDP-LABAN PDP-LABAN PDP-LABAN PDP-LABAN AKO-BICOL Party List PDP-LABAN ACTS-OFW Party List COOP-NATCO Party List PDP-LABAN BUTIL Party List AKO-BICOL Party List A TEACHER Party List ABS Party List Nacionalista Party (NP) KALINGA Party List AKO-BICOL Party List National Unity Party (NUP) AAMBIS-OWA Party List

44. The alphabetical sequence of the “abstentionists” started with letter “A” (Abayon) and ended with the letter “G” (Garin) as prearranged because the infusion of 20 Representatives was deemed sufficient by the leadership of the supermajority to assure respondent Rep. Suarez’s victory as “minority leader”. “A” to “G” were also considered easy to monitor. 45. PDP-LABAN (President Duterte’s Party as well as the political party of Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez and Majority 13

Leader Rodolfo Fariñas), National People’s Coalition (NPC), Nacionalista Party (NP), National Unity Party (NUP) and the abovementioned party list groups, which are federated under the Partylist Coalition Foundation, Inc., are all allied with the supermajority in the House of Representatives. 46. The aforenamed Members of the House in an undated letter scheduled a meeting of “all members of the Minority for the purpose of electing the Minority Leader, tomorrow, Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. at the VIP Conference Room, North Wing, House of Representatives” purportedly “Pursuant to Rule II, Section 8 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 16 th Congress, that were adopted as the provisional rules of the 17th Congress”. A copy of the said letter/notice is attached as ANNEX “J”. 47. None of the Petitioners, except Petitioner Rep. Erice, personally received a copy of the said letter/notice. No less than Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas admitted that he instructed the Pages (House employees assigned at the Plenary Session Hall to assist Representatives) to distribute copies of the said letter/notice showing the prior knowledge of Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas of the scheduled “election”. 48. Pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 8 of Rule II of the Rules of the House, the aforesaid members who made the notice of election are considered independent members of the House because they abstained from voting during the speakership contest, and consequently have no authority to call for the election of the Minority Leader, who in fact had already been elected in the person of Petitioner Rep. Baguilat, Jr. who was the clear runner-up for Speaker of the House. The last paragraph of Section 8 of Rule II reads: “Members who choose not to align themselves with the Majority or the Minority shall be considered as independent Members of the House. They may, however, choose to join the Majority or the Minority upon written request to and approval thereof by the Majority or the Minority, as the case may be.” 49. On 01 August 2016, at around noontime, Petitioner Rep. Lagman, on his behalf and on behalf of the other Petitioners, caused the delivery of a letter to Respondent Speaker Alvarez seeking the recognition of Petitioner Rep. Baguilat, Jr. as the Minority Leader and conveying the committee preferences of the Petitioners. The said letter was amended to correct the designation of Respondent 14

Majority Leader Fariñas as Acting Floor Leader, not Majority Leader. Attached as ANNEXES “K” (original) and “L” (amended) are copies of the letters, copies of which were also furnished Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas. 50. Despite the lapse of more than two (2) months, neither Respondent Speaker Alvarez nor Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas has answered officially the said letter, notwithstanding repeated verbal follow-ups from the Petitioners. 51. During the plenary session on 01 August 2016, Rep. Harlin Neil Abayon III, one of the “abstentionists” made a “Manifestation” that the group composed of those who abstained from voting for Speaker as listed in paragraph No. 42 above together with some of the original supporters of Respondent Rep. Suarez, elected the latter as “Minority Leader” on 27 July 2016 (Reps. Garin, Batocabe and Aggabao reportedly presided over the contrived election but they again abstained from voting). 52. The “Manifestation” of Rep. Abayon III was referred to the Committee on Rules upon motion of the Majority Leader with the approval of the House, but at this point in time, the Rules Committee had not been fully constituted because members of the Minority had not been elected to the Rules Committee. The said referral has not been acted upon collectively by the Committee on Rules. 53. On the same session day, Petitioner Lagman requested that his aforesaid letter dated 01 August 2016 be included in the Journal of the day which the Majority Leader adopted and moved, which motion was approved by the plenary. Attached as ANNEX “M” is a copy of Journal No. 4 dated 01 August 2016 recording the manifestation of Rep. Abayon and the subsequent proceedings thereon and the inclusion of the letter in toto dated 01 August 2016 of Petitioner Lagman. 54. On 26 July 2016, the very day after the election for Speaker, respondent Rep. Suarez wrote a letter to Respondent Speaker Alvarez seeking to transfer to the Minority since under the Rules of the House, he is considered a member of the Majority because he voted for Speaker Alvarez. A copy of said letter is attached as ANNEX “N”. 55. On the same day, July 26, 2016, Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas wrote to Rep. Suarez stating that “pursuant to Section 8 Rule II of the Rules of the House of Representatives, we hereby

allow you to join the minority coalition.” A copy of this letter is attached as ANNEX “O”. 56. The procedure adopted by Rep. Suarez in leaving the Majority and joining the Minority is in violation of the pertinent portion of Section 8 Rule II of the Rules of the House which provides: “A Member may transfer from the Majority to the Minority, or vice versa, at any time: Provided, That: a. The concerned Member submits a written request to transfer to the Majority or Minority, through the Majority or Minority Leaders, as the case may be. The Secretary General shall be furnished a copy of the request to transfer; b. The Majority or Minority, as the case may be, accepts the concerned Member in writing; and c. The Speaker shall be furnished by the Majority or Minority Leaders, as the case may be, a copy of the acceptance in writing of the concerned Member. “In case the Majority or Minority declines such request to transfer, the concerned Member shall be considered an independent Member of the House.” 57. Under the foregoing provision, one who intends to leave the Majority and transfer to the Minority must apply with the Minority Leader and secure the consent of the Minority Leader, not of the Speaker or the Majority Leader. 58. On 01 August 2016 and the days thereafter up to 08 August 2016, ten (10) of those Representatives who were lent to the minority group of Respondent Rep. Suarez, sought to “return” to their mother units, their real political parties, all aligned with the supermajority coalition, to wit: a) On 01 August 2016, Rep. Sharon S. Garin wrote Speaker Alvarez signifying her intention to be with the Majority to which Majority Leader Fariñas in a letter dated 02 August 2016 said that “we are pleased to grant your request and accept you in the majority coalition.” Attached as ANNEX “P” is the letter of Rep. Garin and attached as ANNEX “P-1” is the reply of Majority Leader Fariñas.

b) On 01 August 2016, Rep. Ma. Lourdes R. Aggabao wrote a similar letter to Speaker Alvarez conveying her decision to join the Majority and admitting that she belongs to the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC), to which Majority Leader Fariñas wrote a letter dated 03 August 2016 wherein he said that “we are pleased to grant your request and accept you in the majority coalition.” A copy of Rep. Aggabao’s letter is attached as ANNEX “Q” and a copy of the reply-letter of Majority Leader Fariñas is attached as ANNEX “Q-1”. c) On 02 August 2016, Rep. Rodel M. Batocabe wrote a letter to Majority Leader Fariñas requesting his “transfer and acceptance to the House Majority”, to which Majority Leader Fariñas wrote a reply dated 02 August 2016 stating that “we are pleased to grant your request and accept you in the majority coalition.” A copy of Rep. Batocabe’s letter is attached as ANNEX “R” and a copy of the reply-letter of Majority Leader Fariñas is attached as ANNEX “R-1”. d) On 02 August 2016, Rep. Len B. Alonte-Naguiat wrote a letter to Majority Leader Fariñas expressing her desire “to be a part of the Majority Bloc”, to which Majority Leader Fariñas wrote a reply dated 02 August 2016 wherein he said that “we are pleased to grant your request and accept you in the majority coalition.” A copy of Rep. Alonte-Naguiat’s letter is attached as ANNEX “S” and a copy of the reply-letter of Majority Leader Fariñas is attached as ANNEX “S-1”. e) On 02 August 2016, Rep. Joseph Sto. Niño B. Bernos wrote a letter to Majority Leader Fariñas signifying his “interest in joining the Majority Block” (sic), to which Majority Leader Fariñas wrote a reply dated 08 August 2016 stating that “we are pleased to grant your request and accept you in the majority coalition.” A copy of Rep. Bernos’s letter is attached as ANNEX “T” and a copy of the reply-letter of Majority Leader Fariñas is attached as ANNEX “T-1”. f) On 02 August 2016, Rep. Sol Aragones wrote a letter to Majority Leader Fariñas signifying her “intention to and be counted as a MEMBER of the MAJORITY”, to which Majority Leader Fariñas wrote a letter dated 02 August 2016 stating that “we are pleased to grant your request 17

and accept you in the majority coalition.” A copy of Rep. Aragones’s letter is attached as ANNEX “U” and a copy of the reply-letter of Majority Leader Fariñas is attached as ANNEX “U-1”. g) On 02 August 2016, Rep. Christopher S. Co wrote a letter to Majority Leader Fariñas requesting “transfer and acceptance to the House Majority”, to which Majority Leader Fariñas wrote a reply dated 02 August 2016 stating that “we are pleased to grant your request and accept you in the majority coalition.” A copy of Rep. Co’s letter is attached as ANNEX “V” and a copy of the replyletter of Majority Leader Fariñas is attached as ANNEX “V-1”. h) On 02 August 2016, Rep. Jose Enrique S. Garcia III wrote a letter to Majority Leader Fariñas manifesting his “aspiration to be part of the Majority of the House”, to which Majority Leader Fariñas wrote a reply dated 02 August 2016 stating that “we are pleased to grant your request and accept you in the majority coalition.” A copy of Rep. Garcia’s letter is attached as ANNEX “W” and a copy of the reply-letter of Majority Leader Fariñas is attached as ANNEX “W-1”. i) On 03 August 2016, Rep. Cristal L. Bagatsing wrote a letter to Majority Leader Fariñas requesting that she “be allowed to move to the Majority Block (sic) and to return to my original party PDP-LABAN”, to which Majority Leader Fariñas wrote a reply dated 08 August 2016 wherein he stated that “we are pleased to grant your request and accept you in the majority coalition.” A copy of Rep. Bagatsing’s letter is attached as ANNEX “X” and a copy of the reply-letter of Majority Leader Fariñas is attached as ANNEX “X-1”. j) On 08 August 2016, Rep. Arnel M. Cerafica wrote a letter to Majority Leader Fariñas stating that he would like “to become a member of the majority”, to which Majority Leader Fariñas wrote a reply dated 08 August 2016 wherein he said that “we are pleased to grant your request and accept you in the majority coalition.” A copy of Rep. Cerafica’s letter is attached as ANNEX “Y” and a copy of the reply-letter of Majority Leader Fariñas is attached as ANNEX “Y-1”.

59. Consequently, 10 out of the 20 Representatives belonging to the supermajority coalition who were lent to respondent Rep. Suarez reassumed their supermajority status, which they really never abandoned. The letter of Rep. Aggabao (Annex “P”) is revealing that despite her “being considered a member of the Minority”, she unequivocally stated that “I belong to the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC)”. Also admitting the charade is the letter of Rep. Bagatsing wherein she said that she would like to “return to my original party PDP-LABAN.” 60. Moreover, it should be underscored that all the ten (10) “abstentionists” who reassumed their affiliation with the supermajority coalition got plum positions, to wit: Both were “abstentionists”. 1. Sharon Garin 2. Rodel M. Batocabe

Deputy Speaker Member of the House Electoral Tribunal (HRET) 3. Sol Aragones  Chairperson, Committee on Population and Family Relations  Vice Chairperson, Committee on Women and Gender Equality 4. Christopher S. Co Chairperson, Special Committee on Climate Change 5. Ma. Lourdes R.  Vice Chairperson, Committee Aggabao on Population and Family Relations  Vice Chairperson, Committee on Rural Development 6. Len B. Alonte-  Vice Chairperson, Committee Naguiat on Health  Vice Chairperson, Committee on Women and Gender Equality 7. Joseph B. Bernos Vice Chairperson, Committee on Public Order and Safety 8. Jose Enrique S.  Vice Chairperson, Committee Garcia on Energy  Vice Chairperson, Committee on Health 9. Cristal L. Bagatsing  Vice Chairperson, Committee on Basic Education and Culture  Member, Committee on 19

10. Arnel M. Cerafica

Appropriations  Member, Committee on Foreign Affairs  Vice Chairperson, Committee on Health  Vice Chairperson, Committee on Public Works and Highways

61. Incidentally, Rep. Julieta R. Cortuna has been elected as a member of the Commission on Appointments, while Rep. Alfredo A. Garbin, Jr. assumed the position of Deputy Minority Leader. 62. On 15 August 2016, Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas moved for the recognition of Respondent Rep. Suarez as the “minority leader”. Petitioner Lagman immediately raised a point of order since Suarez is considered part of the Majority because he voted for Speaker Alvarez and consequently, he is not qualified to be the Minority Leader aside from the fact that he was elected by Representatives who were not members of the Minority because they are considered independent members of the House after they abstained from voting in the speakership contest. (Attached as ANNEX “Z” is a copy of Journal No. 10 dated 15 August 2016 which recorded for the first time Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas’ recognition of Respondent Rep. Suarez as “Minority Leader” (ANNEX “Z-1”) 63. Aside from recording Petitioner Rep. Lagman’s point of Order, ANNEXES “Z-1”, “Z-2”, Z-3” and “Z-4” of Journal No. 10 dated 15 August 2016 also recorded the following: a) Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas admitted that Respondent Rep. Suarez sought the permission of Speaker Alvarez to join the Minority. b) Petitioner Lagman said that this was contrary to Section 8 of Rule II which provides that if a member of the Majority would like to transfer to the Minority, he should first seek the permission of the Minority Leader, not the Speaker or the Majority Leader. c) Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas still insisted that since Respondent Rep. Suarez belonged to the

Majority, he should first seek the permission of the Speaker or the Majority Leader to join the Minority. d) Petitioner Lagman countered that the process being purveyed by the Majority Leader and which was followed by Suarez contradicts the plain language of fourth paragraph of Section 8 of Rule II which provides: “A Member may transfer from the Majority to the Minority, or vice versa, at any time: Provided, That: (a) The concerned Member submits a written request to transfer to the Majority or Minority, through the Majority or Minority Leaders, as the case may be. The Secretary General shall be furnished a copy of the request to transfer; (b) The Majority or Minority, as the case may be, accepts the concerned Member in writing; and (c)The Speaker shall be furnished by the Majority or Minority Leaders, as the case may be, a copy of the acceptance in writing of the concerned Member. “In case the Majority or Minority declines such request to transfer, the concerned Member shall be considered an independent Member of the House.” e) Verily, Respondent Rep. Suarez erroneously filed his request to transfer from the majority to the minority with Respondent Speaker Alvarez and it was Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas who granted his request to join the minority. f) The Chair adopted the position of the Majority Leader, which ruling was appealed by Petitioner Lagman and his appeal was lost.

64. On 24 August 2016, Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas delivered a privilege speech wherein he: a) Reiterated that the Minority Leader has to be elected by the Minority Members pursuant to paragraph 2 of Section 8 of Rule II which reads: “The Minority Leader shall be elected by the Members of the Minority and can be changed, at any time, by majority vote of all the Minority Members”. b) He admitted that prior to the amendment of the Rules in the 14th Congress, reflecting the above-quoted provisions, the Minority Leader was the runner-up in the election for Speaker. c) During the 14th Congress, it was only Speaker De Venecia who was nominated and ran for Speaker and consequently, there was no runner-up. At this time, Rep. Roilo Golez informed the Chamber that the Minority Members had chosen Rep. Ronaldo Zamora as Minority Leader. d) Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas admitted that the second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule II which calls for the election of the Minority Leader by the Minority Members was not applied during the 15 th and 16th Congresses. (In the 15th Congress, the runner-up to Speaker Feliciano Belmonte was Petitioner Rep. Edcel Lagman who was recognized as the Minority Leader and in the three-cornered fight for Speaker in the 16 th Congress, Rep. Ronaldo Zamora was the runner-up to Speaker Belmonte as he bested the third candidate, Rep. Martin Romualdez. Rep. Zamora was recognized as Minority Leader without any separate election for Minority Leader. Consequently, the House of Representatives went back to the rule and tradition that the clear runner-up for Speaker automatically becomes the Minority Leader. The second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule II has never been enforced in the previous Congresses). Attached as ANNEX “AA” is a copy of Journal No. 15 dated 24 August 2016 reflecting the foregoing proceedings and attached as ANNEX “AA-1” is the privilege speech of Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas as recorded in Journal No. 15 and ANNEX “AA-2” is the transcript of the privilege speech. 22

65. The Majority coalition in the election for Speaker on July 25, 2016 was expecting that there would be a tie for the runner-up position with Suarez’s group getting eight votes and the Petitioner Baguilat’s group getting the same number of votes. This projection of the supermajority was based on eight members composing the Suarez group, namely: (1) Suarez himself [UNA]; (2) Rep. Luis Campos [UNA]; (3) Rep. Monsour Del Rosario [UNA]; (4) Rep. Delphine Gan Lee [AGRI]; (5) Rep. Orestes Salon [AGRI] (6) Rep. Anna Marie Villaraza-Suarez [ALONA]; (7) Rep. Harry Roque [KABAYAN]; and (8) Rep. Lito Atienza [BUHAY]. On the other hand, the group of Petitioner Baguilat, Jr. was composed of (1) Rep. Teddy Baguilat, Jr. [LP], (2) Rep. Edcel Lagman [LP], (3) Rep. Raul Daza [LP]; (4) Rep. Emmanuel Billones [LP]; (5) Rep. Edgar Erice [LP]; (6) Rep. Tomasito Villarin [AKABAYAN]; (7) Rep. Gary Alejano [MAGDALO]; and (8) Rep. Rodante Marcoleta [SAGIP]. 66. Providentially, Respodennt Rep. Suarez, consistent with his alliance with the Majority, voted for Respondent Speaker Alvarez, thus reducing his group’s votes to only seven against the eight of Petitioner Baguilat, Jr. 67. The expected tie did not happen, but the supermajority continued with their malicious scheme to choose the Majority’s Minority Leader. Consequently, the supermajority-pressured 20 Representatives from the majority coalition who as instructed abstained from voting for Speaker and conveniently considered members of the Minority, proceeded to elect Respondent Rep. Suarez as the Majority’s “Minority Leader”. After accomplishing their contrived “mission”, ten (10) out of the 20 have reverted to the supermajority coalition. 68. Aside from nominating members of his “minority” to the Committee on Rules and to committee memberships, and perfunctory interpellation on the 2017 General Appropriations Bill (GAB), until now, Respondent Rep. Suarez has not discharged his function as Minority Leader because he has not even once adopted a critical stance against the unabated extrajudicial killings of suspected drug traffickers and users, and the reckless statements of President Duterte which compromise the national interest. 69. An authentic Minority Leader would have a field day reasonably criticizing the Duterte administration for its errant priorities and lack of concrete policy directions. This task is consistently discharged by Petitioners herein, who are the authentic minority members. 23

IV. ISSUES A. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER REP. TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR. IS ENTITLED TO BE RECOGNIZED AS THE MINORITY LEADER OF THE 17TH CONGRESS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN LIEU OF RESPONDENT REP. DANILO E. SUAREZ WHO WAS UNLAWFULLY AND ARBITRARILY RECOGNIZED AS THE MAJORITY’S “MINORITY LEADER”. B. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS SPEAKER PANTALEON D. ALVAREZ AND MAJORITY LEADER RODOLFO C. FARIÑAS UNLAWFULLY NEGLECTED TO PERFORM THEIR MINISTERIAL DUTY, AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE, TO RECOGNIZE PETITIONER REP. BAGUILAT, JR. AS MINORITY LEADER AND UNLAWFULLY EXCLUDED HIM FROM HIS RIGHTFUL AND AUTOMATIC POSITION AS MINORITY LEADER, WHICH ENTITLEMENT IS CALLED FOR BY THE LONG UNBROKEN TRADITION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WHICH TRADITION FORMED AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. C. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS SPEAKER ALVAREZ AND MAJORITY LEADER FARIÑAS COMMITTED GRAVE ARBITRARY AND UNLAWFUL ACTS IN RECOGNIZING RESPONDENT REP. SUAREZ AS THEIR HANDPICKED AND COOPTED “MINORITY LEADER”. D. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT HOUSE OFFICIALS, PARTICULARLY RESPONDENT MAJORITY LEADER FARIÑAS, ARBITRARILY AND UNLAWFULLY MISCONSTRUED AND MISAPPLIED, AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE, THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE TO FAVOR THE SELECTION OF RESPONDENT REP. SUAREZ AS THE CHOSEN “MINORITY LEADER”.

V. GROUNDS RELIED UPON FOR THE PETITION A. RESPONDENTS SPEAKER PANTALEON D. ALVAREZ AND MAJORITY LEADER RODOLFO C. FARIÑAS, REPRESENTING THE LEADERSHIP OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IN VIOLATION OF THEIR MINISTERIAL DUTY, COMMITTED A GRAVE ARBITRARY AND UNLAWFUL ACT OF NEGLECT IN NOT RECOGNIZING PETITIONER REP. TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR. AS MINORITY LEADER OF THE 17 TH CONGRESS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND IN EXCLUDING PETITIONER REP. BAGUILAT, JR. FROM THE POSITION OF HOUSE MINORITY LEADER DESPITE HIS HAVING BEEN THE CLEAR RUNNER-UP IN THE ELECTION FOR SPEAKER AND WHO, CONSEQUENTLY, BECAME THE RIGHTFUL AND AUTOMATIC MINORITY LEADER PURSUANT TO THE UNBROKEN LONG-STANDING TRADITION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WHICH IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE HOUSE RULES. B. THE AFORESAID RESPONDENT OFFICIALS OF THE HOUSE ARBITRARILY AND UNLAWFULLY RECOGNIZED, AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE, ON 15 AUGUST 2016 RESPONDENT REP. DANILO SUAREZ AS THE MAJORITY’S “MINORITY LEADER” DESPITE HIS THIRD PLACE FINISH IN THE SPEAKERSHIP CONTEST, A FLAWED RECOGNITION WHICH DEFIED THE UNBROKEN AND LONG-STANDING TRADITION IN THE HOUSE THAT THE UNMISTAKABLE RUNNER UP IN THE SPEAKERSHIP ELECTION IS AUTOMATICALLY RECOGNIZED AS THE MINORITY LEADER. C. RESPONDENT MAJORITY LEADER FARIÑAS ARBITRARILY AND WITTINGLY MISCONSTRUED AND MISAPPLIED, AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE, PARAGRAPH 2 OF SECTION 8 OF RULE II OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE WHEN HE UNWARRANTEDLY OPINED THAT THE MINORITY MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE ARE REQUIRED TO VOTE FOR THE MINORITY LEADER, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THIS WAS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY BECAUSE PETITIONER REP. TEDDY BAGUILAT, JR. PLACED A CLEAR SECOND IN THE SPEAKERSHIP CONTEST AND CONSEQUENTLY BECAME THE MINORITY LEADER. 25

D. RESPONDENT MAJORITY LEADER FARIÑAS ARBITRARILY AND DELIBERATELY MISCONSTRUED AND MISAPPLIED, AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE, THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 8 OF RULE II WHEN HE OBSTINATELY OPINED THAT THOSE WHO ABSTAINED FROM VOTING IN THE ELECTION FOR SPEAKER ARE CONSIDERED MEMBERS OF THE MINORITY IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE CLEAR LANGUAGE AND IMPORT OF THE AFORESAID RULE. E. THE “ELECTION” OF RESPONDENT REP. DANILO SUAREZ AS “MINORITY LEADER” ON 27 JULY 2016 UPON THE CALL AND BEHEST OF THE TWENTY (20) REPRESENTATIVES WHO, AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION FOR SPEAKER, ALL BELONGED TO THE MAJORITY COALITION, BUT WHO ABSTAINED, AS PRE-ARRANGED, FROM VOTING FOR SPEAKER, WAS PATENTLY PREMEDITATED, CONTRIVED, VOID AND ILLEGAL. F. RESPONDENT REP. SUAREZ WAS NOT EVEN QUALIFIED TO BE “MINORITY LEADER” BECAUSE HE BECAME AND REMAINS A MEMBER OF THE MAJORITY AFTER CASTING HIS VOTE FOR RESPONDENT SPEAKER ALVAREZ. G. AFTER ACCOMPLISHING THEIR MISSION OF “ELECTING” RESPONDENT REP. DANILO SUAREZ AS “MINORITY LEADER”, TEN (10) OF THE TWENTY (20) MAJORITY COALITION REPRESENTATIVES RETURNED TO THEIR ORIGINAL PARTIES, THUS EVIDENCING THEIR CONTRIVED “JOINING” THE MINORITY FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF “ELECTING” RESPONDENT REP. DANILO SUAREZ AS “MINORITY LEADER”. H. ON 01 AUGUST 2016, PETITIONER REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER PETITIONERS, WROTE A LETTER TO RESPONDENT SPEAKER ALVAREZ, A COPY OF WHICH WAS FURNISHED TO MAJORITY LEADER FARIÑAS, RECEIPTS OF WHICH WERE ACKNOWLEDGED ON THE SAME DATE, WHEREIN PETITIONERS SOUGHT THAT PETITIONER REP. TEDDY BAGUILAT, JR. BE RECOGNIZED AS THE MINORITY

LEADER AND PETITIONERS BE GIVEN THEIR PREFERRED COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS. I. RESPONDENTS SPEAKER ALVAREZ AND MAJORITY LEADER FARIÑAS UNTIL NOW HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO SAID LETTER, DESPITE FOLLOW-UPS BY THE PETITIONERS. J. TRUE TO HIS ANNOUNCED UNDERTAKING AND COMMITMENT THAT HE WOULD BE COOPERATIVE WITH, IF NOT SUBSERVIENT TO, THE SUPERMAJORITY AND THE DUTERTE ADMINISTRATION, RESPONDENT REP. DANILO SUAREZ, WHO IS THE MAJORITY’S CHOSEN “MINORITY LEADER”, HAS NEVER CENSURED THE SUPERMAJORITY AND PRESIDENT DUTERTE DESPITE NUMEROUS INSTANCES WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CRITICAL, AND ON THE CONTRARY HE HAS CO-AUTHORED MAJOR ADMINISTRATION MEASURES. K. THE PETITIONERS ARE THE ONES DISCHARGING THE ROLE OF THE LEGITIMATE AND AUTHENTIC MINORITY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND VERILY, PETITIONER REP. TEDDY BAGUILAT, JR. MUST BE RECOGNIZED BY RESPONDENTS SPEAKER ALVAREZ AND MAJORITY LEADER FARIÑAS AS THE MINORITY LEADER, AND THE OTHER PETITIONERS BE LIKEWISE RECOGNIZED AS THE LEGITIMATE MEMBERS OF THE MINORITY.

VI. DISCUSSION A. RESPONDENTS SPEAKER PANTALEON D. ALVAREZ AND MAJORITY LEADER RODOLFO C. FARIÑAS, REPRESENTING THE LEADERSHIP OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IN VIOLATION OF THEIR MINISTERIAL DUTY, COMMITTED A GRAVE ARBITRARY AND UNLAWFUL 27

ACT OF NEGLECT IN NOT RECOGNIZING PETITIONER REP. TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR. AS MINORITY LEADER OF THE 17TH CONGRESS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND IN EXCLUDING PETITIONER REP. BAGUILAT, JR. FROM THE POSITION OF HOUSE MINORITY LEADER DESPITE HIS HAVING BEEN THE CLEAR RUNNER-UP IN THE ELECTION FOR SPEAKER AND WHO, CONSEQUENTLY, BECAME THE RIGHTFUL AND AUTOMATIC MINORITY LEADER PURSUANT TO THE UNBROKEN LONG-STANDING TRADITION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WHICH IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE HOUSE RULES. B. THE AFORESAID RESPONDENT OFFICIALS OF THE HOUSE ARBITRARILY AND UNLAWFULLY RECOGNIZED, AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE, ON 15 AUGUST 2016 RESPONDENT REP. DANILO SUAREZ AS THE MAJORITY’S “MINORITY LEADER” DESPITE HIS THIRD PLACE FINISH IN THE SPEAKERSHIP CONTEST, A FLAWED RECOGNITION WHICH DEFIED THE UNBROKEN AND LONGSTANDING TRADITION IN THE HOUSE THAT THE UNMISTAKABLE RUNNER UP IN THE SPEAKERSHIP ELECTION IS AUTOMATICALLY RECOGNIZED AS THE MINORITY LEADER.

70. Grounds A and B are discussed together because they are interrelated. 71. The unbroken tradition in the House of Representatives is that the clear runner-up in the speakership contest is invariably recognized and automatically becomes the elected Minority Leader because the election of the Speaker is at the same time the election of the Minority Leader. 72. No less than Respondent Rep. Suarez has been quoted by media that he was not running for Speaker but for Minority Leader because the second placer in the speakership contest automatically becomes the Minority Leader: “I will run for speaker, but the objective is to be minority leader.” (Please see Annex “A”). 73. Likewise, media reportage acknowledged the tradition whereby the clear runner-up in the speakership contest automatically becomes the elected Minority Leader: “In the fight for the speakership, the House member who gets the second highest number of votes will be designated minority leader.” (Please see Annex “A”); “The lawmaker who will receive the second largest number of votes in the race for majority speakership is automatically minority leader…” (Please see Annex “A-3”); and “The second highest vote-getter would then end up as the House minority leader.” (Please see Annex “A-4”). 74. Since the Minority Leader is the second placer in the election for Speaker, it goes without saying that he is also elected by the minority members who supported his bid. He may be the loser for Speaker but he is the winner in the built-in election for Minority Leader. 75. In the Order of the Day dated 25 July 2016, the election of the Majority Leader was included in the Agenda but the election of the Minority Leader was not part of the Agenda. The reason for this is that the clear runner-up or the one who garners the second highest number of votes in the contest for Speaker automatically becomes the elected Minority Leader. 76. Since the 8th Congress (1987-1992) up to the 16th Congress (2013-2016), the aforesaid tradition has been religiously observed except when the second placer forfeited his seat in favor of another minority member as in the case of Rep. Jose Cojuangco of LDP, the runner-up to Speaker Jose C. De Venecia in the 9 th Congress, who gave up the minority leadership to another LDP member, Rep. Hernando Perez, and when there was no runner-up 29

like during the 14th Congress when Speaker De Venecia ran unopposed. In the latter case, Rep. Ronaldo Zamora was chosen by the opposition as the Minority Leader. 77. In the chronology of events cited by Respondent Majority Leader FariĂąas in a privilege speech on 24 August 2016, it is clear that in reaction to the unopposed candidacy of Speaker De Venecia in the aforesaid 14th Congress where obviously no runner-up for Speaker ensued, the House of Representatives adopted in the Rules of the House of the 14th Congress the second paragraph of Section 7 of Rule II which reads as follows: â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Minority Leader shall be elected by the Members of the Minority and can be changed by a majority vote of all the Minority Members at any time.â&#x20AC;? 78. The aforequoted provision anticipates another eventuality when there is no Member who garners the second highest number of votes because the winner for Speaker ran unopposed or when two or more losing candidates obtain the same second (2 nd) highest number of votes for the position of Speaker as provided for in the third paragraph of Section 7 of Rule II of the Rules of the 13 th Congress, which has suppletory application. 79. It must be underscored that the present provision of the Rules that calls for the election of the Minority Leader by the Members of the Minority was never applied in the 15 th and 16th Congresses because in both Congresses more than one Member ran for Speaker and there was a clear runner-up who garnered the second highest number of votes. In other words, the House followed the tradition that the candidate for Speaker who garners the second highest number of votes is recognized and automatically becomes the Minority Leader. 80. In the 15th Congress when there were only two candidates for Speaker, Petitioner Rep. Edcel C. Lagman was recognized as the Minority Leader when he was the clear runner-up to Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. 81. In the 16th Congress, when there were three candidates for Speaker which was eventually won by Speaker Belmonte, Jr., Rep. Ronaldo Zamora who garnered the second highest number of votes over Rep. Martin Romualdez was automatically recognized as the Minority Leader. 82. Verily, by strength of tradition and reason, the provision that members of the Minority shall elect the Minority Leader did not find applicability in the 15th and 16th Congresses where there were 30

clear runner-ups for Speaker who garnered the second highest number of votes, and consequently, were recognized as the duly elected Minority Leaders. 83. The arbitrary and unlawful actuations of Respondents Speaker Alvarez and Majority Leader Fariñas of refusing and neglecting to recognize Petitioner Rep. Baguilat, Jr. as the duly elected Minority Leader who bested Respondent Rep. Suarez by eight against seven votes, are compounded by their equally arbitrary and unlawful recognition of Respondent Rep. Suarez who was only the third placer in the speakership election and who was subsequently spuriously elected by non-members of the Minority who were all beholden to the supermajority, as will be explained hereunder. 84. To reiterate, both Respondents Speaker Alvarez and Majority Leader Fariñas defied the long-honored tradition in the House that the clear runner-up who garnered the second highest number of votes in the contest for Speaker is recognized automatically as the elected Minority Leader. It is well-settled that traditions are honored as integral parts of the Rules of the House. 85. During the 11th Congress, the Chair ruled that the “Rules, traditions and precedents of the House provide that the losing candidate for Speaker with the second highest number of votes becomes the Minority Leader.” (Rulings of the Chair, 3rd ed., 2010, p. XXXVIII). 86. The entitlement of Petitioner Baguilat, Jr. to serve and be recognized as the Minority Leader of the 17 th Congress of the House of Representatives is a legal right which is legally demandable and enforceable, and accordingly, justiciable under the second paragraph of Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution. 87. Petitioner Rep. Baguilat, Jr. was also denied by Respondents Speaker Alvarez and Majority Leader Fariñas of due process, a cardinal constitutional right. C. RESPONDENT MAJORITY LEADER FARIÑAS ARBITRARILY AND WITTINGLY MISCONSTRUED AND MISAPPLIED, AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE, PARAGRAPH 2 OF SECTION 8 OF RULE II OF THE 31

RULES OF THE HOUSE WHEN HE UNWARRANTEDLY OPINED THAT THE MINORITY MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE ARE REQUIRED TO VOTE FOR THE MINORITY LEADER, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THIS WAS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY BECAUSE PETITIONER REP. TEDDY BAGUILAT, JR. PLACED A CLEAR SECOND IN THE SPEAKERSHIP CONTEST AND CONSEQUENTLY BECAME THE MINORITY LEADER. 88. Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas adamantly insists that under any and all circumstances the Minority members of the House must elect among themselves the Minority Leader purportedly pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule II. 89. Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas is in grave error because: (a)

The 14th Congress adopted the aforesaid second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule II of the House Rules in anticipation of a similar eventuality which happened in the 14th Congress when only one candidate vied for the speakership so much so that the opposition had to select a Minority Leader absent a second placer.

(b)

The subject Rule also covers the eventuality when two or more candidates for Speaker are tied for second place, in which eventuality a run-off election will have to be conducted pursuant to the third paragraph of Section 7 of Rule II of the Rules of the 13th Congress which reads: “In case two or more losing candidates obtain the same second (2nd) highest number of votes for the position of Speaker, a run-off election will be held among the minority Members to determine, through a majority vote thereof, who among those who so obtained the second (2nd) highest number of votes shall be the Minority Leader.”

(c)

However, if there is a clear runner-up for Speaker who garners the second highest number of votes, then the second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule II of the 14 th Congress, which was adopted by the 15 th and 16th Congresses, will not apply and the tradition shall prevail whereby the candidate who places second automatically becomes the elected Minority Leader.

(d)

In the case at bar, Petitioner Rep. Baguilat, Jr. garnered the second highest number of votes with eight (8) against the seven (7) votes of Respondent Rep. Suarez.

(e)

It would therefore be a gross exercise in futility to have another election for Minority Leader when the results showed a clear runner-up in the person of Petitioner Rep. Baguilat, Jr. The results of the election for Speaker as recorded in Journal No. 1 dated 25 July 2016 showed: “With 252 Members voting for Rep. Alvarez (P.), eight voting for Rep. Baguilat, seven voting for Rep. Suarez, 21 abstaining and one registering a no vote, the Presiding Officer declared Rep. Alvarez (P.) as the duly elected Speaker of the House of Representatives for the 17th Congress.” (Please see Annex “H”).

90. Why then the obstinate insistence that second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule II should be followed? The reason is obvious: the supermajority had adequately augmented Respondent Rep. Suarez’s “minority” with “flying voters” from the supermajority to assure the installation of a Majority’s “Minority Leader” which will be further amplified hereunder. 91. However, media exposed the plot to lend partisans from the supermajority to Respondent Rep. Suarez to assure his obtaining second place in the speakership contest. The “flying voters” were also forewarned that they could be easily identified since the roll call vote would record their votes for Respondent Rep. Suarez. 92. In view of this exposé, the leaders of the supermajority changed their strategy to save their pressured partisans from adverse publicity as “flying voters”. They were therefore instructed to abstain from voting for Speaker so that they can hold a separate election as minority members to install Respondent Rep. Suarez as the “Minority Leader”.

93. To implement the change in strategy, Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas erroneously insisted that those who were lent to Respondent Rep. Suarez who abstained from voting for Speaker are considered Members of the Minority. Following a sinister script, the “abstentionists” convened a contrived election for Minority Leader following the flawed opinion of Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas that an election for Minority Leader is required under the second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule II of the House Rules under any and all circumstances. 94. All of these pre-arranged machinations were accomplished so much so that the leadership of the House of Representatives jettisoned the time-honored tradition of the House of recognizing as Minority Leader the candidate who clearly garnered the second highest number of votes in the election for Speaker, who in the case at bar is Petitioner Rep. Baguilat, Jr. 95. The question is not which between the second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule II calling for the election of the Minority Leader by the Members of the Minority and the tradition of recognizing the candidate who garnered the second (2nd) highest number of votes for Speaker as the duly elected Minority Leader is applicable. 96. The overriding question is when to apply either the second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule II or the subject time-honored tradition. 97. The answer is when there is a clear runner-up who garners the second highest number of votes for Speaker, then the time-honored tradition must prevail, like in the case at bar. However, if there is no clear runner-up because the winning Speaker ran unopposed or two or more candidates for Speaker are tied for second place, then the second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule II is applicable, which is not the case at bar because Petitioner Rep. Baguilat, Jr. clearly garnered the second highest number of votes. D. RESPONDENT MAJORITY LEADER FARIÑAS ARBITRARILY AND DELIBERATELY MISCONSTRUED AND MISAPPLIED, AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE, THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 8 OF RULE II WHEN HE OBSTINATELY OPINED THAT 34

THOSE WHO ABSTAINED FROM VOTING IN THE ELECTION FOR SPEAKER ARE CONSIDERED MEMBERS OF THE MINORITY IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE CLEAR LANGUAGE AND IMPORT OF THE AFORESAID RULE. 98. With the same tenacity, Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas arbitrarily and deliberately misconstrued and misapplied the last paragraph of Section 8 of Rule II of the Rules of the House which unequivocally provides: “Members who choose not to align themselves with the Majority or the Minority shall be considered as independent Members of the House. They may, however, choose to join the Majority or the Minority upon written request to and approval thereof by the Majority or the Minority, as the case may be.” 99. Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas again obstinately opined that those who abstained from voting in the election for Speaker are considered members of the Minority in gross violation of the clear language and import of the aforesaid Rule. 100. Again, Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas is in grave error because: (a)

The subject Rule unmistakably provides that “Members who choose not to align themselves with the Majority or the Minority shall be considered as independent Members of the House”, not Members of the Minority.

(b)

Under Section 8 of Rule II of the House Rules, the election for Speaker delineates those (1) who shall constitute the Majority; (2) who shall constitute the Minority; and (3) who are considered independent Members of the House. In other words, the election of the Speaker determines the alignments in the House of Representatives.

(c)

The first paragraph of Section 8 of Rule II provides that: “Members who vote for the winning candidate for Speaker shall constitute the Majority in the House”.

(d)

Reasoning a contrario, those who vote for the opposing candidate/s shall constitute the Minority.

(e)

Those who choose not to align themselves with the Majority or the Minority by abstaining in the speakership contest are considered independent Members of the House.

101. The insistence of Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas of classifying those who abstained from voting as Members of the Minority is consistent with the supermajority’s scheme to augment Respondent Rep. Suarez’s “minority” so that in a separately contrived election, he would be installed as the supermajority’s chosen “minority leader”. This spurious election actually happened when the “abstentionists”, acting as alleged Members of the Minority, held the mock elections for Minority Leader wherein Respondent Rep. Suarez was selected “Minority Leader”. E. THE “ELECTION” OF RESPONDENT REP. DANILO SUAREZ AS “MINORITY LEADER” ON 27 JULY 2016 UPON THE CALL AND BEHEST OF THE TWENTY (20) REPRESENTATIVES WHO, AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION FOR SPEAKER, ALL BELONGED TO THE MAJORITY COALITION, BUT WHO ABSTAINED, AS PREARRANGED, FROM VOTING FOR SPEAKER, WAS PATENTLY PREMEDITATED, CONTRIVED, VOID AND ILLEGAL. F. RESPONDENT REP. SUAREZ WAS NOT EVEN QUALIFIED TO BE “MINORITY LEADER” BECAUSE HE BECAME AND REMAINS A MEMBER OF THE MAJORITY AFTER CASTING HIS VOTE FOR RESPONDENT SPEAKER ALVAREZ.

102. Grounds E and F are discussed together because they are interrelated. 103. Weeks before the election for Speaker at the opening of the 17th Congress on 25 July 2016, there were constant reports, which were not seriously denied, that the supermajority will lend partisans of the majority coalition to the small group of Respondent Rep. Suarez to assure the latter’s victory as Minority Leader. 104. No less than Respondent Rep. Suarez told Rappler that “Our group has talked to Bebot Alvarez (herein Respondent Speaker Alvarez) and we’re drumming the idea of ‘kami na lang ang kunin mong minority sapagkat we’ll be supportive. Constructive kami.’ ” (Please see Annex “C-1”). 105. The sinister plot of herding some members of the majority coalition to the camp of Respondent Rep. Suarez included their abstention from the speakership contest, their being considered Members of the Minority, their eventually holding a separate election to install Respondent Rep. Suarez as “minority leader”, and after accomplishing their mission, their ultimate return to their respective political parties which are components of the supermajority. 106. Shortly before 25 July 2016, eventual Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez met with former Vice President Jejomar Binay and two of his lieutenants in the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA), Rep. Danilo Suarez and Rep. Toby Tiangco, presumably to discuss the contest for Minority Leader since at that time Rep. Alvarez was a runaway winner for Speaker. Rep. Tiangco announced to media that Rep. Alvarez told them that his preferred candidate for Minority Leader was Rep. Danilo Suarez, who did not deny the report. 107. Following the instructions of the supermajority’s leadership and emboldened by Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas’ opinion that those who abstained from voting in the speakership contest were considered Members of the Minority, the 20 “abstentionists” in an undated letter/notice called for an election of the Minority Leader on 27 July 2016 at 10:00 AM at the VIP Conference Room (Please see Annex “J”). 108. The “election” of Respondent Rep. Suarez was spurious and those who called for the election and participated therein were not members of the Minority because under the last paragraph of Section 8 of Rule II of the House Rules, they are considered independent Members of the House of Representatives because their

abstention from voting for Speaker was a manifest indication that they did not align either with the majority or minority. 109. Moreover, the said “abstentionists” in fact belonged to political parties allied with the supermajority coalition and until now they are still coalition partners, to wit: Name of Representative 1. Abayon, Harlin Neil III J. 2. Aggabao, Ma. Lourdes R. 3. Alonte-Naguiat, Len B. 4. Aragones, Sol 5. Arcillas, Arlene B. 6. Bagatsing, Cristal L. 7. Batocabe, Rodel M. 8. Bernos, Joseph Sto. Niño B. 9. Bertiz, Aniceto "John" III D. 10. Bravo, Anthony M. 11. Cerafica, Arnel M. 12. Chavez, Cecilia Leonila V. 13. Co, Christopher S. 14. Cortuna, Julieta R. 15. De Vera, Eugene Michael B. 16. Eusebio, Richard C. 17. Ferriol-Pascual, Abigail Faye C. 18. Garbin, Alfredo Jr. A. 19. Garcia, Jose Enrique III S. 20. Garin, Sharon S.

110. It is relevant to reiterate that PDP-Laban, NPC, NP, NUP and the partylist groups listed above are all components of the supermajority coalition. 111. Furthermore, Respondents Speaker Alvarez and Majority Leader Fariñas were furnished copies of the said letter/notice, which was a clear indication that the said “abstentionists” owe their allegiance to the Respondent House officials from whom they were presumably getting instructions. Minority Members worth their salt would not inform the House leadership of a purely minority activity like the election of their Minority Leader. 112. To top it all, Respondent Rep. Suarez was not even qualified to be elected “minority leader” because as of 27 July 2016 he was a Member of the Majority as he voted for Speaker Alvarez:

“Members who vote for the winning candidate for Speaker shall constitute the Majority.” 113. Respondent Rep. Suarez’s having written a letter dated 26 July 2016 to Speaker Alvarez asking permission to join the Minority and the letter-reply of Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas granting his request to join the Minority (please see Annexes “N” and “O”) are of no moment because the procedure followed was a violation of the fourth paragraph of Section 8 of Rule II wherein a Member who applies to join the Minority must first request the permission of the Minority Leader to transfer to the Minority and must await the positive response of the Minority Leader. The pertinent provisions of Section 8 of Rule II provide: “A Member may transfer from the Majority to the Minority, or vice versa, at any time: Provided, That: a. The concerned Member submits a written request to transfer to the Majority or Minority, through the Majority or Minority Leaders, as the case may be. The Secretary General shall be furnished a copy of the request to transfer; b. The Majority or Minority, as the case may be, accepts the concerned Member in writing; and c. The Speaker shall be furnished by the Majority or Minority Leaders, as the case may be, a copy of the acceptance in writing of the concerned Member.” 114. Respondent Rep. Suarez’s erroneous procedure, which was sanctioned or allowed by Respondent House officials, has no valid effect on his alleged transfer from the Majority to the Minority, and only shows that he has not cut his umbilical cord from the supermajority. He remains a member of the Majority. 115. Incidentally, the clarification of Respondent Rep. Suarez in his letter dated 26 July 2016 that his vote for Respondent Speaker Alvarez “was just in keeping with the honorable practice in our hallowed halls of not voting for oneself” finds no basis in the tradition of the House. On the contrary, contenders for Speaker would not vote for their rivals. More often than not, opposing candidates vote for themselves. Respondent Rep. Suarez voted for Respondent Speaker Alvarez in gratitude for the latter’s support for his aspiration to become Minority Leader and to underscore his allegiance to the supermajority. 39

G. AFTER ACCOMPLISHING THEIR MISSION OF “ELECTING” RESPONDENT REP. DANILO SUAREZ AS “MINORITY LEADER”, TEN (10) OF THE TWENTY (20) MAJORITY COALITION REPRESENTATIVES RETURNED TO THEIR ORIGINAL PARTIES, THUS EVIDENCING THEIR CONTRIVED “JOINING” THE MINORITY FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF “ELECTING” RESPONDENT REP. DANILO SUAREZ AS “MINORITY LEADER”. 116. Betraying their sinister mission to assure the “election” of Respondent Rep. Suarez as “minority leader”, ten (10) of the “abstentionists” shortly returned to their mother units in the supermajority coalition, to wit: a) On 01 August 2016, Rep. Sharon S. Garin wrote Speaker Alvarez signifying her intention to be with the Majority to which Majority Leader Fariñas in a letter dated 02 August 2016 said that “we are pleased to grant your request and accept you in the majority coalition.” (Please see Annexes “P” and “P-1”). b) On 01 August 2016, Rep. Ma. Lourdes R. Aggabao wrote a similar letter to Speaker Alvarez conveying her decision to join the Majority and admitting that she belongs to the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC), to which Majority Leader Fariñas wrote a letter dated 03 August 2016 wherein he said that “we are pleased to grant your request and accept you in the majority coalition.” (Please see Annexes “Q” and “Q-1”). c) On 02 August 2016, Rep. Rodel M. Batocabe wrote a letter to Majority Leader Fariñas requesting his “transfer and acceptance to the House Majority”, to which Majority Leader Fariñas wrote a reply dated 02 August 2016 stating that “we are pleased to grant your request and accept you in the majority coalition.” (Please see Annexes “R” and “R-1”). 40

d) On 02 August 2016, Rep. Len B. Alonte-Naguiat wrote a letter to Majority Leader Fariñas expressing her desire “to be a part of the Majority Bloc”, to which Majority Leader Fariñas wrote a reply dated 02 August 2016 wherein he said that “we are pleased to grant your request and accept you in the majority coalition.” (Please see Annexes “S” and “S-1”). e) On 02 August 2016, Rep. Joseph Sto. Niño B. Bernos wrote a letter to Majority Leader Fariñas signifying his “interest in joining the Majority Block” (sic), to which Majority Leader Fariñas wrote a reply dated 08 August 2016 stating that “we are pleased to grant your request and accept you in the majority coalition.” (Please see Annexes “T” and “T-1”). f) On 02 August 2016, Rep. Sol Aragones wrote a letter to Majority Leader Fariñas signifying her “intention to and be counted as a MEMBER of the MAJORITY”, to which Majority Leader Fariñas wrote a letter dated 02 August 2016 stating that “we are pleased to grant your request and accept you in the majority coalition.” (Please see Annexes “U” and “U-1”). g) On 02 August 2016, Rep. Christopher S. Co wrote a letter to Majority Leader Fariñas requesting “transfer and acceptance to the House Majority”, to which Majority Leader Fariñas wrote a reply dated 02 August 2016 stating that “we are pleased to grant your request and accept you in the majority coalition.” (Please see Annexes “V” and “V-1”). h) On 02 August 2016, Rep. Jose Enrique S. Garcia III wrote a letter to Majority Leader Fariñas manifesting his “aspiration to be part of the Majority of the House”, to which Majority Leader Fariñas wrote a reply dated 02 August 2016 stating that “we are pleased to grant your request and accept you in the majority coalition.” (Please see Annexes “W” and “W-1”). i) On 03 August 2016, Rep. Cristal L. Bagatsing wrote a letter to Majority Leader Fariñas requesting that she “be allowed to move to the Majority Block (sic) and to return to my original party PDP-LABAN”, to which Majority Leader Fariñas wrote a reply dated 08 August 2016 41

wherein he stated that “we are pleased to grant your request and accept you in the majority coalition.” (Please see Annexes “X” and “X-1”). j) On 08 August 2016, Rep. Arnel M. Cerafica wrote a letter to Majority Leader Fariñas stating that he would like “to become a member of the majority”, to which Majority Leader Fariñas wrote a reply dated 08 August 2016 wherein he said that “we are pleased to grant your request and accept you in the majority coalition.” (Please see Annexes “Y” and “Y-1”). 117. Consequently, 10 out of the 20 Representatives belonging to the supermajority coalition who were lent to Respondent Rep. Suarez reassumed their supermajority status, which they really never abandoned. The letter of Rep. Aggabao (Annex “P”) is revealing that despite her “being considered a member of the Minority”, she unequivocally stated that “I belong to the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC)”. Also admitting the charade is the letter of Rep. Bagatsing wherein she said that she would like to “return to my original party PDP-LABAN.” 118. All of the ten (10) “abstentionists” who reassumed their affiliation with the supermajority coalition were rewarded plum positions, to wit: 1. Sharon Garin 2. Rodel M. Batocabe

on Women and Gender Equality 7. Joseph B. Bernos Vice Chairperson, Committee on Public Order and Safety 8. Jose Enrique S.  Vice Chairperson, Committee Garcia on Energy  Vice Chairperson, Committee on Health 9. Cristal L. Bagatsing  Vice Chairperson, Committee on Basic Education and Culture  Member, Committee on Appropriations  Member, Committee on Foreign Affairs 10. Arnel M. Cerafica  Vice Chairperson, Committee on Health  Vice Chairperson, Committee on Public Works and Highways 119. Incidentally, Rep. Julieta R. Cortuna has been elected as a member of the Commission on Appointments, while Rep. Alfredo A. Garbin, Jr. assumed the position of Deputy Minority Leader. Both Representatives Cortuna and Grabin, Jr. were among the “abstentionists”. H. ON 01 AUGUST 2016, PETITIONER REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER PETITIONERS, WROTE A LETTER TO RESPONDENT SPEAKER ALVAREZ, A COPY OF WHICH WAS FURNISHED TO MAJORITY LEADER FARIÑAS, RECEIPTS OF WHICH WERE ACKNOWLEDGED ON THE SAME DATE, WHEREIN PETITIONERS SOUGHT THAT PETITIONER REP. TEDDY BAGUILAT, JR. BE RECOGNIZED AS THE MINORITY LEADER AND PETITIONERS BE GIVEN THEIR PREFERRED COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS. 43

I. RESPONDENTS SPEAKER ALVAREZ AND MAJORITY LEADER FARIÑAS UNTIL NOW HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO SAID LETTER, DESPITE FOLLOW-UPS BY THE PETITIONERS. 120. Grounds H and I are discussed together because they are interrelated. 121. In addition to the privilege speech delivered on 26 July 2016 by Petitioner Rep. Lagman urging the leadership of the House of Representatives to recognize forthwith Petitioner Rep. Baguilat, Jr. as Minority Leader, he also wrote a letter dated 01 August 2016 to Respondent Speaker Alvarez, a copy of which was furnished to Respondent Majority Leader Fariñas, reiterating the demand of the Petitioners that Petitioner Rep.. Baguilat, Jr. be recognized as the legitimate and duly elected Minority Leader of the 17 th Congress of the House of Representatives. 122. The said letter, copies of which were acknowledged by both Respondents Speaker Alvarez and Majority Leader Fariñas, was entered in toto in Journal No. 4 dated 01 August 2016. 123. In the said letter, Petitioners also requested that they be given their preferred committee memberships. It was only on 10 October 2016 when herein Petitioners were given some committee assignments. 124. Until now, Respondents Speaker Alvarez and Majority Leader Fariñas have not responded officially to the aforesaid letter despite numerous follow-ups from the Petitioners. J. TRUE TO HIS ANNOUNCED UNDERTAKING AND COMMITMENT THAT HE WOULD BE COOPERATIVE WITH, IF NOT SUBSERVIENT TO, THE SUPERMAJORITY AND THE DUTERTE ADMINISTRATION, RESPONDENT REP. DANILO SUAREZ, WHO IS THE MAJORITY’S CHOSEN 44

“MINORITY LEADER”, HAS NEVER CENSURED THE SUPERMAJORITY AND PRESIDENT DUTERTE DESPITE NUMEROUS INSTANCES WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CRITICAL, AND ON THE CONTRARY HE HAS COAUTHORED MAJOR ADMINISTRATION MEASURES. K. THE PETITIONERS ARE THE ONES DISCHARGING THE ROLE OF THE LEGITIMATE AND AUTHENTIC MINORITY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND VERILY, PETITIONER REP. TEDDY BAGUILAT, JR. MUST BE RECOGNIZED BY RESPONDENTS SPEAKER ALVAREZ AND MAJORITY LEADER FARIÑAS AS THE MINORITY LEADER, AND THE OTHER PETITIONERS BE LIKEWISE RECOGNIZED AS THE LEGITIMATE MEMBERS OF THE MINORITY. 125. Grounds J and K are discussed together since they are interrelated. 126. Respondents Speaker Alvarez and Majority Leader Fariñas found in Respondent Rep. Suarez the perfect Majority’s “Minority Leader”. He has faithfully complied with his commitment to be a cooperative, if not servile, “opposition” leader. His allegiance to the Respondent House officials and President Duterte finds no parallel. 127. Despite the flawed priorities of the administration and the provocative outbursts of President Duterte, not to mention the unabated extrajudicial killings related to the deadly war against drug traffickers and users, Respondent Rep. Suarez has remained silent and unperturbed by the ongoing violence and adverse developments.

128. On the contrary, he has principally authored with Respondents Speaker Alvarez and Majority Leader Fariñas key administration measures like (a) H.B. No. 1 seeking the re-imposition of the death penalty; (b) H.B. No. 3 granting emergency powers to President Duterte to address the escalating traffic gridlock; (c) H.R. No. 105 which principally links Sen. Leila De Lima, the nemesis of President Duterte in the drug war and human rights violations issues, to the proliferation of the drug trade in the New Bilibid Prison (NBP), among other administration measures. 129. It is the group of the Petitioners who has kept democracy and the opposition alive in the House of Representatives as well as in the nation at large by their critical assessment of the importuning of the majority coalition, emergence of a culture of violence, and the failure of the Duterte administration to advance its trumpeted socioeconomic agenda. 130. Since 27 July 2016, or two days after the opening of the 17 Congress, the Petitioners have conducted without fail weekly media briefings reasonably critical of the majority and the Duterte administration by discussing issues on: th



Unabated extrajudicial killings related to the deadly war against drug dealers and users;



Primacy of Congress, particularly the House Representatives, in the appropriation of public funds;



The anti-poor provisions of the Comprehensive Tax Reform Package which, among others, removes the VAT exemptions for persons with disability (PWDs) and senior citizens, while it imposes higher excise taxes on petroleum products where the tax burden cascades to the consuming public, the great majority of whom are the disadvantaged and marginalized;



President Duterte’s outlandish rhetoric directed against the United States, United Nations and the European Union which is detrimental to the economy;



The proposed revival of the Philippine Constabulary which was reputed to be akin to the Gestapo during martial law;



The continuing fall of the Philippine peso which is the gravest in seven (7) years together with foreign investors’ on-going withdrawal from the Philippine stock market;



The unremarkable first 100 days of President Duterte;



The grant of exorbitant combat duty pay and combat incentive pay to the men in uniform in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) [EO No. 03];



Memorandum Circular No. 4 which requires the resignation of officials appointed by the previous administrations while exempting those appointed during the Duterte administration;



The vaudeville investigation of the House Committee on Justice linking Sen. De Lima to the narcotics trade in the NBP; and



Excising the excess fat in the General Appropriations Bill (GAB), among many others.

PRAYER ACCORDINGLY, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Supreme Court that due course be granted to the Petition, and after due proceedings, a Decision be rendered: (1)

Granting the Petition;

(2) Compelling Respondents Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez and Majority Leader Rodolfo C. Fariñas to recognize forthwith Petition Rep. Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Jr. as the Minority Leader of the 17 th Congress of the House of Representatives; and (3) Ordering the aforesaid House officials to likewise recognize Petitioners Reps. Edcel C. Lagman, Raul A. Daza, Edgar R. Erice, Emmanuel A. Billones, Tomasito S. Villarin and Gary C. Alejano as the legitimate Members of the Minority. Petitioners also pray for other just and equitable reliefs. Quezon City, for Manila 14 October 2016

LAGMAN LAGMAN & MONES LAW FIRM Counsel for the Petitioners 2/F Tempus Place Condominium Makatarungan cor. Matalino Sts., Brgy. Central, Diliman, Quezon City Telefax: 433-5354 lagmanlaw@gmail.com

BENELITA J. MONES-BORROMEO Roll of Attorney’s No. 47287 06 May 2002 PTR No. 2182898/Quezon City/06 January 2016 IBP Lifetime No. 09779/04 January 2011/QC MCLE Compliance No. V No. 0018680 Mobile No. 09164293109

EXPLANATION The foregoing Petition for Mandamus is filed with the Supreme Court and copies served on the Respondents, all by registered mail because of personnel constraints and the contingency of the traffic situation. BENELITA J. MONES-BORROMEO Original and copies filed by registered mail: SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES Padre Faura, Manila

QC Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. ____ 14 October 2016

Copies furnished by registered mail: SPEAKER PANTALEON D. ALVAREZ 2nd Floor, Main Building, House of Representatives Constitution Hills, Quezon City

QC Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. ____ 14 October 2016

MAJORITY LEADER RODOLFO C. FARIÑAS 1st Floor, Main Building, House of Representatives Constitution Hills, Quezon City

QC Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. ____ 14 October 2016

REP. DANILO E. SUAREZ

QC Hall Post Office 48

N-401, House of Representatives Constitution Hills, Quezon City

Registry Receipt No. ____ 14 October 2016