MANILA, Philippines ? Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura questioned the inclusion of two lawmakers as members of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) despite having pending electoral protests.

But the leadership of the House is standing pat on its choice to keep Laguna Representative Justin Marc Chipeco and Bulacan Representative Joselito Andrew ?Jonjon? Mendoza in the body that would decide on disqualification cases against congressmen.

?For now, the choice for the House contingent to the HRET stays. We don?t see any potential conflict between the legislative and the judiciary because the concerned persons have offered to inhibit in the discussion of their respective cases,? Deputy Speaker and Quezon Representative Lorenzo ?Erin? Tanada III said.

The HRET is composed of nine members, three of who are justices of the Supreme Court assigned to the tribunal by the chief justice; the remaining six are members of the House of Representatives chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the partylist system.

Heading the high tribunal?s contingent is Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, together with Nachura and Arturo Brion.

Davao del Sur Representative Franklin Bautista leads the House team, along with Representatives Rufus Rodriguez of Cagayan de Oro, Ma. Theresa Bonoan-David of Manila, Mendoza and Chipeco.

Electoral protests filed by their respective opponents against Chipeco and Mendoza in the last May elections were among the 60 cases now pending before the HRET.

The tribunal has started its organizational meetings but without Chipeco and Mendoza.

Interviewed by phone, Chipeco acknowledged Nachura?s question as a ?legitimate concern that the body should settle now? but said that he was bound to remain in the HRET unless ordered by the House leadership to step aside.

As a compromise, Chipeco said he and Mendoza offered to inhibit themselves from the deliberation and voting of their cases.

?I?m willing to voluntarily go out and not participate in the deliberation of my case. I think it is a fair compromise,? Chipeco said.

?But who should really determine who can sit as member? As far as we know, we were designated based on proportional representation from political parties. Does the HRET have the right to prevent somebody from performing his duties? Can the tribunal do that?? he added.

Chipeco, who was also a member of the HRET in the 14th Congress, said he had forewarned the House leadership about his case before he was named to the body. But he said he was still asked to be part of the contingent because of his experience as a former HRET member.

The case against Chipeco was filed by Severino Vergara, who questioned the votes in 10 clustered precincts in the second district of Laguna.

But Chipeco said that even if his opponent got all the votes in the precincts under question it would still be mathematically impossible for Vergara to defeat him as the votes in the 10 precincts represented only 10,000 votes.

Chipeco?s lead against Vergara totalled 147,000 votes.