017 AVELINO vs.

CUENCO
[G.R. No. L-2821; March 4, 1949 ]
TOPIC: Quorum & Attendance
PONENTE:

AUTHOR:
NOTES: (if applicable)

FACTS:
On February 21, 1949, Sen. Tanada filed with the Senate Secretary charges against Senate President Avelino. Sen.
Tanada requested to give a privilege speech during the session. Sen. Tanadas motions were continuously denied of the
common courtesy and ruling Sen. Sanidad and Tanada out of order!. Senator Avelino along with other Senators, walkedout of the session hall. Senate President Pro-Tempore Arranz issued Resolution No. 67 and 68 declaring the vacancy of the
position of Senate President and installing Hon. Cuenco as Acting Senate President. These resolutions were voted and
unanimously approved.
Thus, Avelino filed a petition before the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court with a vote of 6 out of the
10 Justices present, decided to deny the petition stating that the Court has no jurisdiction on the case. Petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration. The SC with a majority vote of seven, granted the motion and took cognizance over the case.
ISSUE(S): WON the 12 Senators who installed Cuenco as the Acting President of the Senate constituted a quorum?
HELD: YES
RATIO:
YES. Supreme Court held that there is a quorum that the 12 senators being the majority of 23 Senators. Resolution Nos. 67
and 68 are valid. Sen. Cuenco has been legally elected as Senate President. PETITION DISMISSED.
If the rump session was not a continuation of the morning session, was it validly constituted? In other words, was there the
majority required by the Constitution for the transaction of the business of the Senate? Justice Paras, Feria, Pablo and
Bengzon say there was, firstly because the minute say so, secondly, because at the beginning of such session there were at
least fourteen senators including Senators Pendatun and Lopez, and thirdly because in view of the absence from the
country of Senator Tomas Confesor twelve senators constitute a majority of the Senate of twelve three senators. When the
Constitution declares that a majority of "each House" shall constitute aquorum, "the House: does not mean "all" the
members. Even a majority of all the members constitute "the House". (Missouri Pac. vs. Kansas, 63 Law ed. [U. S.], p.
239). There is a difference between a majority of "the House", the latter requiring less number than the first. Therefore an
absolute majority (12) of all the members of the Senate less one (23), constitutes constitutional majority of the Senate for
the purpose of a quorum. Mr. Justice Pablo believes furthermore than even if the twelve did not constitute a quorum, they
could have ordered the arrest of one, at least, of the absent members; if one had been so arrested, there would be no doubt
Quorum then, and Senator Cuenco would have been elected just the same inasmuch as there would be eleven for Cuenco,
one against and one abstained.
NOTE:
Quorum has been defined as that number of person of the body, which legally assembled in their proper places, will
enable the body to transact its lawful business, or, in other words, that number that makes the lawful body and gives it
power to pass a valid act. Unless otherwise validly provided, it ordinarily refers to one-half plus one of the entire
membership of the body. (Agpalo, 2005.)
Although the Supreme Courts initial findings that there was no quorum originally constituted, the Supreme Court finds
light in the dissenting opinions of the Justices that even if a new quorum were to be established, Sen. Cuenco would still be
elected Senate President because of the 12 Senators supporting him and only 11 Senators supporting Sen. Avelino.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: Physical presence during session is required. The attendance of the session showed that
majority of the members were present thereby constituting quorum. The walk out done did not affect such quorum.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):