Avelino vs Cuenco
March 4, 1949 | Resolution (6-4 vote to deny petition)
Original Action in the Supreme Court for quo warranto. Petitioner Avelino
asks the Court to declare him the rightful President of the Philippine Senate
and oust respondent Cuenco.
Facts:
In the session of the Senate of February 18, 1949, Senator Tanada
requested that his right to speak (privilege speech) on the floor the
following session day, February 21, 1949, to formulate charges against
Senate President Jose Avelino, be reserved.
On the appointed time on the 21st, 10:00 am, a quorum had already been
formed at the senate and Avelino was already in his office. However, he
delayed his arrival to the Senate Hall to around 11:35 am and then when he
got there, he employed some tactics to delay Tanada giving his privilege
speech, such as a lengthy reading of a resolution, calling of the roll and
reading of the minutes, all of which were repeatedly opposed by Tanada and
respondent Cuenco, among others.
Meanwhile, before, during and after the calling of the roll, Tanada
repeatedly stood up to claim his right to his privilege speech, but
Avelino simply ignored this by finally declaring to everyone in the hall that
anyone who from thereon speaks without his permission will be
arrested.
All the while when one of his allies, Senator Tirona kept on interjecting,
out of order! Out of order!
Another ally of Avelino then moved for the adjournment of the session, in
which petitioner concurred and banged the gavel despite repeated
opposition of respondent.
Avelino then left the session hall together with 9 other senators.
Of the remaining senators (12 senators), Senate President Pro-tempore
Arranz took over as Acting Chair and then allowed Tanada to deliver his
privilege speech Resolution No 68, submitted it for approval which received
unanimous vote form the remaining Senators.
Senator Sanidad then introduced Resolution No. 67 Resolution declaring
vacant the position of the President of the Senate and designating the
Honorable Mariano Jesus Cuenco Acting President of the Senate.
Resolution No. 67 was unanimously approved. Cuenco took the oath.
The next day, the President of the Philippines recognized the respondent as
Acting President of the Senate.
Hence, the petitioner asks the court to oust respondent and he be declared
rightful President of the Senate.
Issues:
1) WON the Court have jurisdiction over the case? NO
In view of the separation of powers, the political nature of the controversy
and the constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own
president, which power should not be interfered with, nor taken over by the
judiciary.
COURT: Refuse to take cognizance of VERA CASE even if the rights of
the electors of the suspended senators were allegedly affected without
any immediate remedy.
A fortiori we should abstain in this case because the selection of the
presiding officer affects only the Senators themselves who are at liberty
at any time to choose their officers, change or reinstate them.
REMEDY LIES IN THE SENATE SESSION HALL NOT IN SC
o Court will not sally into the legitimate domain of the Senate on the
plea that SCs refusal to intercede might led into a crisis, even a
revolution.
No state of things has been proved that might change the temper of the
Filipino people as a peaceful and law-abiding citizens. We should not allow
oursevles to be stamped into a rash action inconsistent with the calm that
should characterize judicial deliberations.
WERTS V ROGERS [DOES NOT APPLY] Situation is not where two
sets of senators have constituted themselves into 2 senates actually
functioning as such (in WERTS case) there being no question that there
is presently one PH Senate only.
o PETITIONER and his partisans have not erected themselves into
another Senate. His claim is merely that RESPONDENT has not
been duly elected in his place in the same ONE PH Senate
o Recognition accorded by Chief Executive to RESPONDENT makes it
adivseable to adopt the hands-off policy enunciated by this Corut in
matters of similar nautre.
Avelinos rightful remedy for his claim is in the Session Hall and not in the
Supreme Court.
The precedent cited by the petitioner, Werts v. Rogers does not apply
because unlike the case at bar, Werts is about two sets of senators that
have constituted themselves into two senates. In the case at bar, there
is only one Philippine Senate.
Furthermore, the recognition by the President of the Philippines of Cuencos
ascent makes it even more advisable to adopt the hands off policy.
2) WON Resolutions Nos. 68 and 67 were validly approved? YES
Pointless to pass on this issue since the Court has no jurisdiction, but the
Court offered its opinion regarding the presence of a valid quorum.
There was a valid quorum because the so-called rump session is a
continuation of the morning session and that a minority of 10 senators
leaving the Senate hall, may not prevent the other 12 senators from
passing a resolution that met with their unanimous endorsement.
More so, even if the rump session was not a continuation of the morning
session, it was validly constituted, there being a majority required by the
Constitution for the transaction of business in the Senate (the minutes say
so; there were at least 14 senators at the beginning of the rump session, 12
senators left when Lopez and Pendatun left still a majority (22 only because
Sotto was hospitalized and Confessor was outside the country US)
Sec 10 (2), Art VI
A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business
- The House does not mean all the members
There is a difference between a majority of all the members of the House
and a majority of the House, the latter requiring less number. (cf. FERIAs
concurring opinion)
SEPARATE OPINIONS
Main point of dissents:
The Court has jurisdiction over the case since Cuenco was not validly
elected as a Acting Senate President because there was no quorum.
Therefore, question is of constitutional nature since Avelino was illegally
deposed as Senate President.
MORAN, CJ [CONCURRING & DISSENTING]
ON JURISDICTION OF COURT
Court has jurisdiction over the case crisis in the Senate is one that
imperatively calls for the intervention of the Court
CUENCO cannot invoke the doctrine of non-interference by the courts
with the Senate because the legal capacity of his group of 12
senators to act as a senate is being challenged by AVELINO on the
ground of lack of quorum
o If this group is found sufficient to constitute a quorum under the
Constitution, then its proceedings should be free from interference
o If it is not possessed of a valid quorum, then its procedings should be
voided.
The issue as to legal capacity of CUENCO group to act as a senate
cannot be considered a political question the determination of which
devolves exclusively upon the senate [involves a constitutional
question which cannot be validly decided either by CUENCO group
or by AVELINO group separately]
o If CUENCO group had no quorum the AVELINO group has
decidedly less
o The two groups cannot act together inasmuch as the members of
the AVELINO group, possibly to avoid trouble, do not attend the
sessions presided by the CUENCO believing as they do that the
latter was illegally elected
o CUENCO group believing itself as possessing the consituttional
quorum and not desiring to make any semblance of admission to
the contrary, does not find it convenient to compel attendance of
any senator in the AVELINO group
QUESTION: WHO WILL DECIDE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
TWO GROUPS? Conflict remains unsettled while the Court refuses to
intervene
o The validity of all the laws, resolutions and other measures which
may be passed by the CUENCO group will be open to doubt
because of an alleged lack of quorum in the body which authored
them.
o This doubt may extend, in diverse forms, to the House of
Representatives and to the other agencies of the government such
as the Auditor General's Office.
This situation may, to a large extent, be stopped and
constitutional processes may be restored in the Senate if only
this Court, as the guardian of the Constitution, were to
pronounce the final word on the constitutional mandate
governing the existing conflict between the two groups.
ON LEGALITY OF CUENCOS ELECTION AS ACTING SENATE
PRESIDENT
Although AVELINOs adjournment of the session was illegal, such
illegality cannot be countered with another illegality
Session wherein CUENCO was elected as acting President of
Senate was illegal because when Senator Mabanag raised the
question of a quorum and the roll was called, only 12 senators were
present.
o In the Philippines, there are 24 Senators, and therefore, the
quorum must be 13.
Vote:
o 4 no quorum
o 4 there was a quorum
o 2 Court has no jurisdiction
o 1 absent from Philippines
PERFECTO, J [DISSENTING]
ON QUORUM
ISSUE: Who among the parties is entitled to hold the position of President of
Senate
No quorum. The phrase each House refer to full membership of the
Senate. Quorum is 13 out of 24 senators.
Rump session held by 12 senators had no constitutional quorum to
conduct business.
ON JURISDICTION
1. CUENCO: Present controversy is not justiciable in nature, involving as it
does, a purely political question, the determination of which by the
political agency concerned, the Senate, is binding and conclusive on the
courts [UNTENABLE]
 o Assumes the premise that the question has been determined by the
Seante when the 2 opposing parties claim that each one of them
represents the will of the Senate, and if the controversy hsould be
allowed to remain unsettled, it would be impossible to determine who
is right and who is wrong, and who really represents the Senate
The questions raised, although political in nature, are justiciable because
they involve the enforcement of legal precepts, such as the provisions of
the Constitution and of the rules of Senate
Power and authority to decide such questions of law form part of the
jurisdiction, not only expressly conferred on the SC, but of which, by
express prohibition of the Constitution, it cannot be divested
Because the legal questions raised cannot be decided without deciding
also what is the truth on the controversial facts, by the very nature of
things, the jurisdiction of the SC reached the settlement of the conflicting
claims as to the real events
2. CUENCO: He has been recognized by the President as acting Senate
President and that executive recognition is binding and conclusive on the
courts [ERRONEOUS]
The actions of the President of the Philippines cannot deprive the
Supreme Court of the jurisdiction vested in it by the Constitution
If the Congress of the Philippines, in which the Legislative power is
vested, cannot deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to decide
questions of law, much less can the President of the Philippines, on
whom is vested the Executive power, which in the philosophical and
political hierarchy is of subordinate category to that of the Legislative
power, do so. [Power to enact laws is higher than the power to
execute them]
3. CUENCO: To entertain the petition, is to invade and encroach upon the
powers, rights and prerogatives solely and exclusively appertaining toth
eLegislative Department, of which the Senate is a branch
[ERRONEOUS]
The controversy as to the legality of the adjournment declared by
AVELINO, of his ouster, as a result of the resolution declaring vacant the
position of President of the Senate, of CUENCOs election as acting
President of the Senate, and as to whether or not the twelve Senators
who remained in the session hall could continue holding session and if
they constitute quorum, are all legal questions upon which courts of
justice have jurisdiction and the Supreme Court is the final arbiter.
BRIONES, J & PABLO, J IN SPANISH
TUASON, J [DISSENTING]
Agrees with Briones, that the 12 Senators who elected Senator
Cuenco Acting President of the Senate did not constitute a quorum,
thus, his election was illegal
FERIA, J [CONCURRING]
ON JURISDICTION
Theory of Separation of Powers (State Constitutions of USA) has
given rise to the distinction between justiceable questions which fall
within the province of the judiciary, and political questions which are not
within the jurisdiction of the judiciary and are to be decided, under the
Constitution, by the People in their sovereign capacity or in regard to
which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or
executive branch of the government, except to the extent that the power
to deal with such question has been conferred upon the court by express
or statutory provision.
Political Question involves political rights which consists in the power
to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or management
of the government
Justiciable Question affect civil, personal or property rights accorded
to every member of the community or nation
The Judicial Supremacy is the power of judicial review in actual and
appropriate cases and controversies that present justiciable issues,
which fall within the jurisdiction or power allocated to the judiciary; but
when the issue is a political one which comes within the exclusive sphere
of the legislative or executive department of the Government to decide,
the judicial department or Supreme Court has no power to determine
whether or not the act of the Legislature or Chief Executive is against the
Constitution.
What determines the jurisdiction of the courts is the issue involved,
and not the law or constitutional provision which may be applied.
ON QUORUM
Art 3 Title VI of the 1935 Constitution provided that the majority of all
the members of the National Assembly constitute a quorum top do
business
o Amended in 1939 to read: a majority of each House shall
constitute a quorum to do business
Shows intent of framers to base the majority not on the number fixed
or provided for in the but on actual members of incumbents, and this
must be limited to actual members who are not incapacitated to
discharge their duties by reason of death, incapacity, or absence
from the jurisdiction of the House, or for other causes which make
attendance of the member concerned impossible, even through
coercive process which each house is empowered to issue to
compel its members to attend the session in order to constitute a
quorum.