Jose Avelino vs Mariano Cuenco

On February 18, 1949, Senator Lorenzo Tañada invoked his right to speak on the senate
floor to formulate charges against the then Senate President Jose Avelino. He requested to
do so on the next session (Feb. 21, 1949). On the next session day however, Avelino
delayed the opening of the session for about two hours. Upon insistent demand by Tañada,
Mariano Cuenco, Prospero Sanidad and other Senators, Avelino was forced to open
session. He however, together with his allies initiated all dilatory and delaying tactics to
forestall Tañada from delivering his piece. Motions being raised by Tañada et al were being
blocked by Avelino and his allies and they even ruled Tañada and Sanidad, among others,
as being out of order. Avelino’s camp then moved to adjourn the session due to the
disorder. Sanidad however countered and they requested the said adjournment to be
placed in voting. Avelino just banged his gavel and he hurriedly left his chair and he was
immediately followed by his followers. Senator Tomas Cabili then stood up, and asked that
it be made of record — it was so made — that the deliberate abandonment of the Chair by
the Avelino, made it incumbent upon Senate President Pro-tempore Melencio Arranz and
the remaining members of the Senate to continue the session in order not to paralyze the
functions of the Senate. Tañada was subsequently recognized to deliver his speech. Later,
Arranz yielded to Sanidad’s Resolution (No. 68) that Cuenco be elected as the Senate
President. This was unanimously approved and was even recognized by the President of
the Philippines the following day. Cuenco took his oath of office thereafter. Avelino then
filed a quo warranto proceeding before the SC to declare him as the rightful Senate
President.
ISSUE: Whether or not the SC can take cognizance of the case.
HELD: No. By a vote of 6 to 4, the SC held that they cannot take cognizance of the case.
This is 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. The SC 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. Anyway, if,
as the petition must imply to be acceptable, the majority of the Senators want petitioner to
preside, his remedy lies in the Senate Session Hall — not in the Supreme Court.
Supposed the SC can take cognizance of the case, what will be the resolution?
There is unanimity in the view that the session under Senator Arranz was a continuation of
the morning session and that a minority of ten senators (Avelino et al) may not, by leaving
the Hall, prevent the other (Cuenco et al) twelve senators from passing a resolution that met
with their unanimous endorsement. The answer might be different had the resolution been
approved only by ten or less.
**Two senators were not present that time. Sen. Soto was in a hospital while Sen. Confesor
was in the USA.
Is the rump session (presided by Cuenco) a continuation of the morning session
(presided by Avelino)? Are there two sessions in one day? Was there a quorum
constituting such session?
The second session is a continuation of the morning session as evidenced by the minutes
entered into the journal. There were 23 senators considered to be in session that time
(including Soto, excluding Confesor). Hence, twelve senators constitute a majority of the
Senate of twenty three senators. When the Constitution declares that a majority of “each
House” shall constitute a quorum, “the House” does not mean “all” the members. Even a
majority of all the members constitute “the House”. 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 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.
Furthermore, 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.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (filed by Avelino on March 14, 1949)
Avelino and his group (11 senators in all) insist that the SC take cognizance of the case and
that they are willing to bind themselves to the decision of the SC whether it be right or
wrong. Avelino contends that there is no constitutional quorum when Cuenco was elected
president. There are 24 senators in all. Two are absentee senators; one being confined and
the other abroad but this does not change the number of senators nor does it change the
majority which if mathematically construed is ½ + 1; in this case 12 (half of 24) plus 1 or 13
NOT 12. There being only 12 senators when Cuenco was elected unanimously there was
no quorum.
The Supreme Court, by a vote of seven resolved to assume jurisdiction over the case in the
light of subsequent events which justify its intervention. The Chief Justice agrees with the
result of the majority’s pronouncement on the quorum upon the ground that, under the
peculiar circumstances of the case, the constitutional requirement in that regard has
become a mere formalism, it appearing from the evidence that any new session with a
quorum would result in Cuenco’s election as Senate President, and that the Cuenco group,
taking cue from the dissenting opinions, has been trying to satisfy such formalism by issuing
compulsory processes against senators of the Avelino group, but to no avail, because of the
Avelino’s persistent efforts to block all avenues to constitutional processes. For this reason,
the SC believes that the Cuenco group has done enough to satisfy the requirements of the
Constitution and that the majority’s ruling is in conformity with substantial justice and with
the requirements of public interest. Therefore Cuenco has been legally elected as Senate
President and the petition is dismissed.
Justice Feria: (Concurring)
Art. 3 (4) Title VI of the Constitution of 1935 provided that “the majority of all the members of
the National Assembly constitute a quorum to do business” and the fact that said provision
was amended in the Constitution of 1939, so as to read “a majority of each House shall
constitute a quorum to do business,” shows the intention of the framers of the Constitution
to base the majority, not on the number fixed or provided for in the Constitution, but
on actual members or 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. That the amendment was intentional or made
for some purpose, and not a mere oversight, or for considering the use of the words “of all
the members” as unnecessary, is evidenced by the fact that Sec. 5 (5) Title VI of the original
Constitution which required “concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the National
Assembly to expel a member” was amended by Sec. 10 (3) Article VI of the present
Constitution, so as to require “the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of each
House”. Therefore, as Senator Confesor was in the United States and absent from the
jurisdiction of the Senate, the actual members of the Senate at its session of February 21,
1949, were twenty-three (23) and therefore 12 constituted a majority.
Defensor-Santiago vs. Guingona G.R. No. 134577, November 18,
1998
Sunday, January 25, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: During the first regular session of the eleventh Congress, Senator
Fernan was declared the duly elected President of the Senate by a vote of 20 to
2. Senator Tatad manifested that, with the agreement of Senator Santiago,
allegedly the only other member of the minority, he was assuming the position
of minority leader. He explained that those who had voted for Senator Fernan
comprised the majority, while only those who had voted for him, the losing
nominee, belonged to the minority. Senator Flavier manifested that the
senators belonging to the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP Party numbering 7 and, thus, also
a minority had chosen Senator Guingona as the minority leader. Thereafter, the
majority leader informedthe body that he was in receipt of a letter signed by the
7 Lakas-NUCD-UMDP senators, stating that they had elected Senator Guingona
as the minority leader. By virtue thereof, the Senate
President formallyrecognized Senator Guingona as the minority leader of the
Senate. Senators Santiago and Tatad filed a petition for quo warranto, alleging
that Senator Guingona had been usurping, unlawfully holding and exercising the
position of Senate minority leader, a position that, according to them, rightfully
belonged to Senator Tatad.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the petition
(2) Whether or not there is an actual violation of the Constitution

Held: Regarding the first issue, jurisdiction over the subject matter of a
case is determined by the allegations of the complaint or petition, regardless of
whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief asserted. In light of the
allegations of the petitioners, it is clear that the Court has jurisdiction over the
petition. It is well within the power and jurisdiction of the Court to inquire
whether indeed the Senate or its officials committed a violation of the
Constitution or gravely abused their discretion in theexercise of their functions
and prerogatives.

However, the interpretation proposed by petitioners finds no clear support from

the Constitution, the laws, the Rules of the Senate or even from practices of the
Upper House. The term “majority,” when referring to a certain number out of a
total or aggregate, it simply means the number greater than half or more than
half of any total. In effect, while the Constitution mandates that the President of
the Senate must be elected by a number constituting more than one half of all
the members thereof, it does not provide that the members who will not vote
for him shall ipsofacto constitute the minority, who could thereby elect the
minority leader. No law or regulation states that the defeated candidate shall
automatically become the minority leader.

While the Constitution is explicit in the manner of electing a Senate President

and a House Speaker, it is, however, dead silent on the manner of selecting the
other officers in both chambers of Congress. All that the Charter says under Art.
VI, Sec. 16(1) is that “each House shall choose such other officers as it may
deem necessary.” The method of choosing who will be such other officers is
merely a derivative of the exercise of the prerogative conferred by the said
constitutional provision. Therefore, such method must be prescribed by the
Senate itself, not by the Court.