Advisory Opinion No. 01-2022

In the matter of the significance and primacy of the Oath of Office as a condition sine qua non for the elected and appointed officers to legitimately assume office under the 2021 Constitution of the Parliamentary League of Students in Politics

x--------------------------------------------------------x

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 01-2022

Pursuant to Section 5 (5.3), Article IX, Chapter I of the 2021 Constitution of the Parliamentary League of Students in Politics (P-POL), the undersigned officers of the Judicial Assembly respectfully issue this Advisory Opinion motu proprio and pro hac vice to advise the duly elected and appointed officers of the Parliament on the significance and primacy of the Oath of Office prior to the assumption of office.

.

BACKGROUND

On 09 April 2022, the Election Committee enacted Ordinance No. 01-2022 or the Omnibus Election Code of the P-POL. The Parliamentary Assembly approved it on 26 April 2022 and the same was duly published on the official platforms of the Parliament for the information and guidance of the officers and members.

On 14 May 2022, the 2022 Parliamentary Elections were held with an 80.5% voter turnout. The majority vote required for the elective positions of Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister was successfully attained.

Two days thereafter or on 16 May 2022, the Election Committee held the 2022 Special Elections because the majority vote required under the Constitution for the elective positions of Minister-General, Chief Economic Minister, and Chief Jurist was not reached. As a result, the Special Elections yielded a 93.5% voter turnout.

On even date, the Election Committee issued Memorandum No. 14-2022 to inform the Parliament of the official results of the 2022 Parliamentary and Special Elections pursuant to Section 14, Article I of Ordinance No. 01-2022, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code of the P-POL.

Subsequently, the Election Committee issued Resolution No. 01-2022 to officially proclaim the winners of the 2022 Parliamentary and Special Elections and provide for the post-election guidelines to ensure the orderly transition of powers and responsibilities from the incumbent officers to the incoming officers of the P-POL.

In compliance with Section 9 of Election Committee Resolution No. 01-2022, former Prime Minister Peter Paul P. Mabitad established the Transition Team through Special Order No. 03-2022 on 24 May 2022. It was tasked to extend assistance and ensure the orderly transfer and smooth transition of records, functions, and powers to the newly elected and appointed officers of Parliament for Academic Year 2022-2023.

Premised by said issuance, it is presumed that the provisions thereof were faithfully complied with by the outgoing and incoming officers. This presumption was made because no information or notice was provided to the Parliament regarding the date when the transition process began and concluded.

On separate days, the Prime Minister-Elect, Francis Joseph B. Pagulayan, issued various notices pertaining to the appointment of officers for the various Cabinet Ministries of the organization.

On 04 June 2022, the Commission on Appointments issued a Notice of Confirmation confirming the appointments of the following appointed officers of the Parliament:

However, the Prime Minister-Elect did not issue subsequent notices regarding the date of Oath of Office despite the suggested date therefor by the Election Committee under Resolution No. 01-2022.

To the mind of the Judicial Assembly, we do not find such inadvertent negligence in the slightest bit amusing. Thus, this Advisory Opinion.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

In Advisory Opinion No. 01-2021 dated 15 July 2021, it was enunciated therein the well-settled jurisprudential doctrine that the duty and power to interpret or construe a statute or the Constitution belong to the judiciary. Judicial review is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is. By constitutional fiat, the Judicial Assembly has the power to interpret and apply the 2021 P-POL Constitution and other parliamentary measures that the Parliament enacted or has yet to enact.

Under our sui generis parliamentary democratic system, the Constitution empowers the Judicial Assembly to prescribe judicial doctrines, which shall be binding on all organs and committees unless reversed, repealed, or modified for being unreasonable, unjust, or impossible for the organization.

Since the subject of this Advisory Opinion includes the undersigned officers also as they have not yet taken their oath until this date, we hold that this Advisory Opinion will be met with criticism and rejection on the sole ground that we have no authority to issue this because we have not yet even formally and legitimately assumed office.

On its face, it is surmised that the other parliamentary organs would argue that this Advisory Opinion was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Such a conjectural argument does not persuade as the Judicial Assembly is not precluded from exercising other inherent functions and powers within the purview of the Constitution.

When the Judicial Assembly renders an Advisory Opinion, grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction can only be attributed to other organs or committees of the Parliament to the exclusion of the Judicial Assembly. It cannot be a subject of grave abuse of discretion since judicial power is exclusively lodged therein.

To implicate the Judicial Assembly with such finding is to abrogate its independence, subvert its judicial supremacy, and disturb constitutional order. This is because there can be no legal right or power as against the authority that exercises it on which such legal right or power depends.

A finding of grave abuse of discretion to an organ or committee does not make the Judicial Assembly immune from any error or superior over other organs of the Parliament. When the Judicial Assembly finds that an act of an organ or committee will result or has resulted in grave abuse of discretion, the finding derived therefrom is based on the sacred duty of the Judicial Assembly to uphold the Constitution and ensure that the powers of the organs and committees are exercised within constitutional boundaries.

OUR ADVISORY OPINION

Under the 2021 Constitution of the P-POL, the Oath of Office signifies the dissolution of the previous Parliament and the commencement of a new one. It is a symbolic activity that implies constitutional continuity of democratic governance as evidenced by the voluntary transfer of functions and powers by the former officers to the newly elected ones.

Without the conduct of the Oath of Office, the subsequent political or legal actions of the officers, acting in a de facto capacity, are not clothed with legitimacy and, therefore, null and void. A null and void action is fraught with ominous constitutional repercussions to the detriment of the Parliament at large.

In the absence of that solemn ceremony, the Parliament is now faced with a quandary on whether the interregnum should be casually considered as a period where the organization has no duly recognized officers; the organization is non-existent at all; or the former officers continue to assume their respective constitutional mandates. These circumstances are patently absurd because they leave an impression that no constitutional continuity has taken place in direct contravention of the spirit of the 2021 Constitution.

The significance and primacy of the Oath of Office are further elaborated in Section 17, Article I of Ordinance No. 01-2022 or the Omnibus Election Code of the P-POL, which provides that:

x x x

“Section 17. Creation of the Parliament. The newly elected Prime Minister shall, immediately after the Parliamentary or Special Elections, submit a List of Nominees for the Cabinet Ministries to the Commission on Appointments for its confirmation.

After the confirmation, the Prime Minister shall issue a memorandum to notify the school community and the Parliament of the newly elected and appointed officers of the organs of the Parliament. They shall take their oath of office before the Moderator of the P-POL before the Second Semester concludes. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied).

Those Members of the Parliament who are or will be appointed by the Prime Minister to the Standing Committees, either as Chairpersons or Members, shall take their oath before the Moderator during the First General Assembly of the First Semester of the ensuing academic year.”

x x x

Applying statutory construction, the use of the verb “shall” means that the provision where that verb appears is mandatory. The second sentence of the second paragraph of Section 17 is a mandatory, not directory, provision because it imposes upon the newly elected and appointed officers of the organs of Parliament to take their oath of office before the Second Semester concludes.

To enforce the said provision, the Election Committee stipulated in Section 7 of Committee Resolution No. 01-2022 dated 16 May 2022 the following:

x x x

“Section 7. Oath of Office. The oath of office of the newly elected and appointed officers of the Organs of Parliament may be held on 25 May 2022 or at a later date set by the newly elected Prime Minister at the Moot Court or through video teleconferencing. The newly elected Prime Minister shall request in writing the Moderator, Mr. Julius Cesar N. Deloy, to officiate the oath of office.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied).

x x x

It is with deep consternation that notwithstanding the suggested date provided by the Election Committee, the Second Semester of Academic Year 2021-2022 already concluded without the elected and appointed officers of the organs of the Parliament having taken their oath of office.

Non-compliance with any mandatory provision under the Constitution is a grave misconduct that calls for accountability. Accountability may be exacted through a vote of no confidence for the elected officers or revocation of appointment in the case of the appointed officers of the Organs of Parliament and the Chairpersons and the Members of the Standing Committees.

Albeit the Judicial Assembly is not in the position to demand accountability from those who must be held liable as no de jure officers are existent to this date, it behooves us to remind and advise the Prime Minister-Elect to faithfully carry out the mandatory constitutional provisions, the Omnibus Election Code, and the Election Committee Resolution No. 01-2022.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Prime Minister-Elect is hereby directed to hold the Oath of Office of all the elected and appointed officers of the Parliament at the soonest possible time and submit to the Judicial Assembly a written explanation within three (3) days from receipt hereof on why such Oath of Office was not timely conducted.

UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED by the Judicial Assembly this 15th day of August 2022 in Davao City, Philippines.

SO ORDERED.