You are on page 1of 4


1. The petitioners, Senator Jose Avelino, in a quo warranto proceeding (a legal proceeding during
which an individuals right to hold office or government privilege is challenge), asked the court
to declare him the rightful Senate President and oust the respondent, Mariano Cuenco.
2. In a session of the Senate, Tanadas request to deliver a speech in order to formulate charges
against then Senate President Avelino was approved.
3. With the leadership of the Senate President followed by his supporters, they deliberately tried
to delay and prevent Tanada from delivering his speech.
4. The Senate President with his supporters employed delaying tactics, the tried to adjourn the
session then walked out.
5. Only 12 Senators were left in the hall. The members of the senate left continued the session
and Senator Cuenco was appointed as the Acting President of the Senate and was recognized
the next day by the President of the Philippines.
1. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction of the case.
2. Whether or not Resolutions 67 & 68 (declaring vacant the position) was validly approved.
1. The Court has no jurisdiction of the case because the subject matter is political in nature and in
doing so, the court will be against the doctrine of separation of powers.
2. To the first question, the answer is in the negative, in view of the separation of powers, the
political nature of the controversy (Alejandrino vs. Quezon, 46 Phil. 83; Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil.
192; Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1) 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. A fortiori the court abstain in this case because the selection of the presiding
officer affect 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.
3. The basis for determining the existence of a quorum in the Senate shall be the total number of
Senators who are in the country and within the coercive jurisdiction of the Senator.
4. There are 24 senators in all. Two are absentee senators; one being confined (Soto) and the
other abroad (Confesor).
5. It was held that there is a quorum that 12 being the majority of 23 (including Soto, excluding
Confesor). In fine, all the four justice agree that the Court being confronted with the practical

situation that of the 23 senators who may participate in the Senate deliberations in the days
immediately after this decision, twelve senators will support Senator Cuenco and, at most, 11
will side with Senator Avelino, it would be most injudicious to declare the latter as the rightful
President of the Senate, that office being essentially one that depends exclusively upon the will
of the majority of the senators, the rule of the Senate about tenure of the President of that
body being amenable at any time by that majority. And at any session hereafter held with
thirteen or more senators, in order to avoid all controversy arising from the divergence of
opinion here about quorum and for the benefit of all concerned,the said twelve senators who
approved the resolutions herein involved could ratify all their acts and thereby place them
beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Arroyo v. De Venecia
1. An amendment to the National Internal Revenue Code was introduced to the House
of Representatives involving taxations on the manufacture and sale of beer and cigarettes (RA
2. This was later passed accordingly and brought to the House of Senate.
3. Upon the interpellation on the second reading, herein petitioner moved for adjournment for
lack of quorum which is constitutionally needed to conduct business.
4. The Chair conducted a roll call and declared the presence of a quorum.
5. The bill was moved for the approval and ratification of the conference committee report. The
Chair called out for objections to the motion. Then the Chair declared:There being none,
approved. At the same time the Chair was saying this, Rep. Arroyo was asking, What is
thatMr. Speaker? The Chair and Rep. Arroyo were talking simultaneously. Thus, although
Rep. Arroyo subsequently objected to the Majority Leaders motion, the approval of the
conference committee report had by then already been declared by the Chair.
6. On the same day, the bill was signed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President of the Senate and certified by the respective secretaries of both Houses of Congress.
The enrolled bill was signed into law by President Ramos.
Whether or not the law was passed on violation on the constitutional mandate.
1. The court upheld principle of separation of powers, which herein, is applicable for the
legislative branch for it has exercised its power without grave abuse of discretion resulting to

lack or excess of jurisdiction. A legislative act will not be declared invalid for non compliance
with the internal Rule of the House.
2. Rules of each House of Congress are hardly permanent in character. They are subject to
revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting them as they are
primarily procedural. They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body.
Consequently, mere failure to conform to them does not have the effect of nullifying the act
taken if the requisite number of members has agreed to a particular measure.
3. There is no rule of the House concerned that quorum shall be determined by viva voce
or nominal voting. The Constitution does not require that the yeas and nays of the Members
be taken every time a House has to vote, except only on the following instances:
a. upon the last and the third readings of the bill,
b. at the request of 1/5 of the Members present and in repassing a bill over the veto of the
4. The suggestion made in a case[48] may instead appropriately be made here: petitioners can
seek the enactment of a new law or the repeal or amendment of R.A. No. 8240. In the
absence of anything to the contrary, the Court must assume that Congress or any House
thereof acted in the good faith belief that its conduct was permitted by its rules, and deference
rather than disrespect is due the judgment of that body.

Angara vs Electoral
63 Phil. 139 Political Law Judicial Review Electoral Commission
1. In the elections of Sept 17, 1935, Angara, and the respondents, Pedro Ynsua et al. were
candidates voted for the position of member of the National Assembly for the first district of
the Province of Tayabas.
2. On Oct 7, 1935, Angara was proclaimed as member-elect of the NA for the said district.
3. On November 15, 1935, he took his oath of office.
4. On Dec 3, 1935, the NA in session assembled, passed Resolution No. 8 confirming the election
of the members of the National Assembly against whom no protest had thus far been filed.
5. On Dec 8, 1935, Ynsua, filed before the Electoral Commission a Motion of Protest against the
election of Angara.
6. On Dec 9, 1935, the EC adopted a resolution, par. 6 of which fixed said date as the last day for
the filing of protests against the election, returns and qualifications of members of the NA,
notwithstanding the previous confirmation made by the NA.
7. Angara filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that by virtue of the NA proclamation, Ynsua can no
longer protest.

8. Ynsua argued back by claiming that EC proclamation governs and that the EC can take
cognizance of the election protest and that the EC cannot be subject to a writ of prohibition
from the SC.

1. Whether or not the SC has jurisdiction over such matter.
2. Whether or not EC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the
election protest.

1. The SC ruled in favor of Angara. The SC emphasized that in cases of conflict between the
several departments and among the agencies thereof, the judiciary, with the SC as the final
arbiter, is the only constitutional mechanism devised finally to resolve the conflict and allocate
constitutional boundaries.
2. That judicial supremacy is but the power of judicial review in actual and appropriate cases and
controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no one branch or agency of the
government transcends the Constitution, which is the source of all authority.
3. That the Electoral Commission is an independent constitutional creation with specific powers
and functions to execute and perform, closer for purposes of classification to the legislative
than to any of the other two departments of the government.
4. That the Electoral Commission is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns
and qualifications of members of the National Assembly.