Lorenzo M. Taada and Diosdado Macapagal vs.

Mariano
J. Cuenco, Francisco A. Delgado, Alfredo Cruz, Catalina
Cayetano, Manuel Serapio, Placido Reyes, and Fernando
Hipolito
G.R. No. L-10520 Feb. 28, 1957
FACTS: After the 1955 national elections, the membership in
the Senate was overwhelmingly occupied by the Nacionalista Party.
The lone opposition senator was Lorenzo Taada who belonged to
the Citizens Party. Diosdado Macapagal on the other hand was a
senatorial candidate who lost the bid but was contesting it before
the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET). But prior to a decision the SET
would have to choose its members. It is provided that the SET
should be composed of 9 members comprised of the following: 3
justices of the Supreme Court, 3 senators from the majority party
and 3 senators from the minority party. But since there is only one
minority senator the other two SET members supposed to come
from the minority were filled in by the NP. Taada assailed this
process before the Supreme Court. So did Macapagal because he
deemed that if the SET would be dominated by NP senators then
he, as a member of the Liberalista Party will not have any chance in
his election contest. Senator Mariano Cuenco et al (members of the
NP) averred that the Supreme Court cannot take cognizance of the
issue because it is a political question. Cuenco argued that the
power to choose the members of the SET is vested in the Senate
alone and the remedy for Taada and Macapagal was not to raise
the issue before judicial courts but rather to leave it before the bar
of public opinion.
ISSUE: Whether or not the issue is a political question.
HELD: No. The SC took cognizance of the case and ruled that the
issue is a justiciable question. The term Political Question connotes
what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. It
refers to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be
decided 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. It is concerned
with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular
measure.
In this case, the issue at bar is not a political question. The Supreme
Court is not being asked by Taada to decide upon the official acts
of Senate. The issue being raised by Taada was whether or not the
elections of the 5 NP members to the SET are valid which is a
judicial question. Note that the SET is a separate and independent
body from the Senate which does not perform legislative acts.
But how should the gridlock be resolved?

The nomination of the last two members (who would fill in the
supposed seat of the minority members) must not come from the
majority party. In this case, the Chairman of the SET, apparently
already appointed members that would fill in the minority seats
(even though those will come from the majority party). This is still
valid provided the majority members of the SET (referring to those
legally sitting) concurred with the Chairman. Besides, the SET may
set its own rules in situations like this provided such rules comply
with the Constitution.