Avelino v.

Cuenco (1949)

FACTS:
 Feb. 18: Sen. Lorenzo Tañada requested for his right to speak on the floor be made on the next session day
o To formulate charges against then Senate President and herein petitioner Jose Avelino
o His request was approved
 Feb 21: Hours before the session’s opening, Sen. Tañada and Sen. Sanidad filed with the Senate Secretary a
resolution enumerating charges against Sen. Avelino
 Petitioner delayed his appearance at the session hall by over an hour despite quorum being reached by 10:00
(only two senators were not present, Sen. Sotto was hospitalized; Sen. Confesor was in the U.S.)
o Upon his arrival, petitioner requested to have a copy of the resolution
o He proceeded to read it slowly and carefully
o He called and coferred with Sen. Francisco and Sen. Tirona
 Session opened shortly before 12:00 noon due to insistent requests of Sen. Tañada and Cuenco
 Following a long-established practice, Sen. Sanidad moved that the roll call be dispensed with
o Sen. Tirona opposed the motion “obviously in pursuance of a premeditated plan of petitioner and his
partisans to delay the privilege speech”
o The roll was called
 Sen. Sanidad moved to dispense with the reading of the minutes, as usual practice
o Sen. David and Tirona opposed
 Sen. Tañada repeatedly stood to claim his right to deliver his speech
o Petitioner, then presiding, continuously ignored him
 After minutes was read, Sen. Tañada insisted on being recognized by the Chair
o Petitioner announced that he would order the arrest of any senator who would speak without being
recognized by him
o Sen. Tirona continuously shouted at Sen. Sanidad, “Out of order!” every time the latter would speak
 Disorderly conduct broke out in the Senate gallery
 Sen. David was recognized by petitioner and moved for adjournment of session
o Sen. Sanidad registered his opposition; moved that motion be put to vote
 Petitioner banged the gavel and hurriedly walked out of the session; followed by Senators David, Tirona,
Francisco, Torres, Magalona, and Clarin
 Sen. Melecio Arranz, Senate President Pro-tempore, urged by those senators present took the Chair and
proceeded with the session
 Sen. Cabili stood up and asked that it be put on record the deliberate abandonment of the Chair by the petitioner
o Remaining members of Senate continued the session in order not to paralyze the functions of the Senate
 Respondent took the Chair; Sen. Abad was appointed Acting Secretary because the Secretary followed the
petitioner
 Sen. Tañada was able to deliver his privilege speech
 Sen. Sanidad read aloud the complete text of Resolution 68 and submitted his motion for approval
o Unanimously approved
 Sen. Sanidad 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”
o The resolution was put to a vote
o Unanimously approved
 Sen. Cuenco took the oath
 Philippine president recognized the respondent as Acting President of the Senate
 Petitioner in the quo warranto petition asks the Court to declare him the rightful Senate President and oust the
respondent

ISSUES + RULING:

WON the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter NO.
 Political question
 Constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own President; such power should not be interfered
with by the judiciary
o Vera
 The selection of Presiding Officer affects only the Senators, who are at liberty at any time to choose their officers,
change, or reinstate them
 Werts v. Rogers – does not apply; two senators constituted themselves in two senates
o The case at hand is unquestionably only about one senate
 The recognition of the Chief Executive to the respondent makes it adviseable to adopt the hands-off policy
WON resolutions 68 and 67 validly approved YES.
 Was the “rump session” a continuation of the validly assembled with 22 senators in the morning - YES
o Supposing that there is jurisdiction (which the Court held was none), the session under Sen. Arranz was a
continuation of the morning session
o A minority of ten senators may not, by leaving the hell, prevent the other twelve senators from passing a
resolution that met with their unanimous endorsement
o *The answer may be different if the resolution had been approved only by ten or less
 Was there a quorum in that session - YES
o The minutes say that there was a session
o There were 14 senators at th beginning, including Sen. Pendatun and Sen. Opez
o In view of the bsence from the country of Sen. Confesor, 12 senators constitute a majority of the Senate
of 23
o Constitution: “majority of each house” does not mean “all” the members
o There is a difference between a majority of “all the members of the House” and “a majority of the House”
 Had there been 23 senators who voted on the deliberations, 12 votes would go to Sen. Cuenco, and at most, 11
will side with the Petitioner
o It would be injudicious to declare the latter as the Senate President

WON the petition should be granted NO.

DISPOSITION: Petition is dismissed (6-4)

Concurring and Dissenting

Moran, C.J.

 The Court has jurisdiction over the case

 Crisis in the senate calls for the intervention of the Court
 Respondent cannot invoke the Doctrine of Non-Interference
o Legal capacity of twelve senators to act as senate is challenged on the ground of lack of quorum
 There are 24 members of the Philippine senate; therefore quorum must be 13
o If the group is found sufficient to constitute a quorum under the Constitution, then its proceedings should
be free from interference; if not, proceedings should be voided
 Legal capacity of Cuenco group to act as senate is not a political question
o Issue involves a Constitutional question
 Respondent was not legally elected as president
 Situation of Court makes the question of whether or not respondent has been legally elected is doubtful in the
Court
o 4 believe there was no quorum
o 4 believe there was a quorum
o 2 declined to render opinion
 Petitioner’s adjournment of the session was illegal
o Illegality cannot be countered with another illegality