TAÑADA & MACAPAGAL VS. CUENCO ET.
members, since it is a constitutional right
AL.
Petition for Certiorari & Preliminary Injunction
Ponente: Justice Concepcion
Personalities: Lorenzo Tañada
Diosdado Macapagal
Petitioners
Mariano Jesus Cuenco
Francisco Delgado
Alfredo Cruz
Catalina Cayetano
Manuel Serapio
Placido Reyes
Fernando Hipolito
Respondents
Tañada, Teehankee & Macapagal
for petitioners
Solicitior General Ambrosio Padilla
Solicitor Troadio Quizon Jr.
For respondents
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 Tañada. 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 ET
are 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 Tañada'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
granted to Senate. Moreover, the petition is
without cause of action since Tañada
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 Tañada 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. Tañada 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 violated

2. right to elect of Senate held in
abeyance by refusal of minority party
to nominate
3. process of nomination effectively
superior to power to elect (party v.
Senate power)
4. SC arrogation of power in determining
Con Con’s proviso of <9 ET members
under certain circumstances

The refusal of Tañada to nominate must

be considered a waiver of privilege based on
constitutionality and reason, in order to
reconcile two applications of Art. 6, Sec. 2.