Você está na página 1de 2

TAADA & MACAPAGAL VS. CUENCO ET.AL.

Digested

TAADA & MACAPAGAL VS. CUENCO ET.AL.

G.R. No. L-10520 February 28, 1957

FACTS:

On Feb. 22, 1956, the Senate on behalf of the Nacionalista Party elected
respondents Cuenco & Delgado as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal upon
the nomination of Senator Primicias, an NP member. The two seats, originally for
minority party nominees, were filled with NP members to meet the Constitutional
mandate under Sec.2 Art. 6, over the objections of lone Citizen Party Senator
Taada. Consequently, the Chairman of the Tribunal appointed the rest of the
respondents as staff members of Cuenco & Delgado. Petitioner alleges that the
nomination by Sen. Primicias on behalf of the Committee on Rules for the Senate,
violates Sec. 2, Art. 6 of PC, since 3 seats on the ETare reserved for minority
senators duly nominated by the minority party representatives. Furthermore, as
respondents are about to decide on Electoral Case No. 4 of Senate, the case at bar
is a violation not only of Taada's right as CP member of ET, but respondent
Macapagal's right to an impartial body that will try his election protest. Petitioners
pray for a writ of preliminary injunction against respondents (cannot exercise
duties), to be made permanent after a judgment to oust respondents is passed.
Respondents contend that the Court is without jurisdiction to try the appointment of
ET members, since it is a constitutional right granted to Senate. Moreover, the
petition is without cause of action since Taada exhausted his right to nominate 2
more senators; he is in estoppel. They contend that the present action is not the
proper remedy, but an appeal to public opinion.

ISSUES:

1.WON Court has jurisdiction over the matter

2.WON Constitutional right of CP can be exercised by NP, or the Committee on Rules


for the Senate

HELD:

1. Yes. The Court has jurisdiction. RATIO: The case at bar is not an action against the
Senate compelling them to allow petitioners to exercise duties as members of ET.
The ET is part of neither House, even if the Senate elects its members. The issue is
not the power of the Senate to elect or nominate, but the validity of the manner by
which power was exercised (constitutionality).The Court is concerned with the
existence and extent of said discretionary powers.
2. No. RATIO: Although respondents allege that the Constitutional mandate of 6
Senate members in the ET must be followed, this cannot be done without violating
the spirit & philosophy of Art. 6, Sec. 2, which is to provide against partisan
decisions. The respondents' practical interpretation of the law (modifying law to fit
the situation) cannot be accepted; although they followed mandate on number,
they disobeyed mandate on procedure. The contention that petitioner Taada
waived his rights or is in estoppel is not tenable. When interests of public policy &
morals are at issue, the power to waive is inexistent. Taada never led Primicias to
believe that his nominations on behalf of the CP are valid. WHEREFORE: The Senate
cannot elect members of the ET not nominated by the proper party, nor can the
majority party elect more than 3 members of the ET. Furthermore, the CRS has no
standing to nominate, and the election of respondents Cuenco & Delgado void ab
initio. The appointment of the staff members are valid as it is a selection of
personnel - a matter under the discretion of the Chairman. PARAS DISSENTING: The
procedure or manner of nomination cannot affect Consti mandate that the Senate is
entitled to 6 seats in the ET. The number of seats (9) must be held fixed, since the
Consti must have consistent application. There is no rule against the minority party
nominating a majority party member to the ET. Furthermore, the Senate, and not
the parties, elect on the ET members, brushing aside partisan concerns. LABRADOR
DISSENTING: The petition itself is unconstitutional under Art. 6 Sec. 2 because:1.9-
member ET mandate violated2.right to elect of Senate held in abeyance by refusal
of minority party to nominate3.process of nomination effectively superior to power
to elect (party v. Senate power)4.SC arrogation of power in determining Con Cons
proviso of <9 ET member sunder certain circumstances The refusal of Taada to
nominate mustbe considered a waiver of privilege based on constitutionality and
reason, in order to reconcile two applications of Art. 6, Sec. 2.

Você também pode gostar