You are on page 1of 8

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
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.

in this case 12 (half of 24) plus 1 or 13 NOT 12. it appearing from the evidence that any new session with a quorum would result in Cuenco’s election as Senate President. Even a majority of all the members constitute “the House”. the constitutional requirement in that regard has become a mere formalism. The Supreme Court. and that the Cuenco group. There is a difference between a majority of “all the members of the House” and a majority of “the House”. and Senator Cuenco would have been elected just the same inasmuch as there would be eleven for Cuenco. Therefore an absolute majority (12) of all the members of the Senate less one (23). Soto was in a hospital while Sen. “the House” does not mean “all” the members. Hence. There being only 12 senators when Cuenco was elected unanimously there was no quorum. There are 24 senators in all. excluding Confesor). 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. taking cue from the dissenting opinions. the latter requiring less number than the first. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (filed by Avelino on March 14. When the Constitution declares that a majority of “each House” shall constitute a quorum.**Two senators were not present that time. 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. the SC believes that the Cuenco group has done enough to satisfy the requirements of the . constitutes constitutional majority of the Senate for the purpose of a quorum. even if the twelve did not constitute a quorum. Sen. Two are absentee senators. at least. they could have ordered the arrest of one. because of the Avelino’s persistent efforts to block all avenues to constitutional processes. there would be no doubt Quorum then. under the peculiar circumstances of the case. Confesor was in the USA. has been trying to satisfy such formalism by issuing compulsory processes against senators of the Avelino group. but to no avail. 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. twelve senators constitute a majority of the Senate of twenty three senators. by a vote of seven resolved to assume jurisdiction over the case in the light of subsequent events which justify its intervention. if one had been so arrested. Furthermore. Avelino contends that there is no constitutional quorum when Cuenco was elected president. There were 23 senators considered to be in session that time (including Soto. one against and one abstained. For this reason. The Chief Justice agrees with the result of the majority’s pronouncement on the quorum upon the ground that. of the absent members.

Therefore Cuenco has been legally elected as Senate President and the petition is dismissed. and not a mere oversight. and this must be limited to actual members who are not incapacitated to discharge their duties by reason of death. Justice Feria: (Concurring) Art. as Senator Confesor was in the United States and absent from the jurisdiction of the Senate. Therefore. so as to require “the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of each House”.Constitution and that the majority’s ruling is in conformity with substantial justice and with the requirements of public interest. 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. the actual members of the Senate at its session of February 21. or for considering the use of the words “of all the members” as unnecessary. 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.” shows the intention of the framers of the Constitution to base the majority. is evidenced by the fact that Sec. or absence from the jurisdiction of the house or for other causes which make attendance of the member concerned impossible. That the amendment was intentional or made for some purpose. but on actual members or incumbents. not on the number fixed or provided for in the Constitution. 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. Read full text ADVERTISEMENTS Related Posts . so as to read “a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business. 1949. incapacity. 10 (3) Article VI of the present Constitution. were twenty-three (23) and therefore 12 constituted a majority.

 AVELINO vs CUENCO (March 14. 1949)  Lorenzo Tañada vs Mariano Cuenco  Ramon Gonzales vs COMELEC  Felix Barcelon vs Colonel Baker of the Philippine Constabulary . 1949)  AVELINO vs CUENCO (March 4.

case digest. 17. No. Notify me of new posts by email.minutes. L-2821. legislative department. separation of powers Go To Top Leave a Comment SUBMIT COMMENT Notify me of follow-up comments by email.R. constitutional law. political question. political law. Election of Members. Sponsored Links Find UberDigests on Facebook Site Owner: Atty. Avelino vs Cuenco. Justiciable Question. Jose Avelino vs Mariano Cuenco. Howard Chan . quorum. adjournment.G. TAÑADA vs CUENCO Comments 0 comments 83 Phil.

info Inside UberDigests  Quizzes and Exams  eCodals  Forum  Law Memes and Jokes  Filipinolosophy  The Law Student Blog Law Subjects  Civil Law  Criminal Law  Labor Law  Legal Ethics  Political Law ... CAREMCO Bldg. Silang St.Licudine and Associates Law Office 2nd Flr.. DENR-LMS Cmpd. #79 D.. Baguio City 2600 (74) 422-2551 howard@uberdigests.

and opinions posted herein by the author is in no way and should never be construed as attributable to said law office. He passed the 2014 bar exams and was admitted to the bar on April 29. including any response to queries or comments posted. This blog was started by the owner. Howard Chan. information or remark made on this site. Any posts. 2015. distinctions must be made between posts. and opinions made by the author before and after admission to the bar. Digests and other resources within this site are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License unless otherwise indicated. The author is now part of a law firm in the City of Baguio (Licudine and Associates Law Office). comments. when he was still a law student. Browse Our Pages  ABOUT UBER DIGESTS  TERMS OF USE . comments. Remedial Law  Mercantile Law  Taxation Law  Statutory Construction Disclaimer Any opinion. should not be regarded as a complete and authoritative statement of the law. This site is only meant as a resource to aid students and researchers on their legal studies. Thus.

 PRIVACY POLICY  DISCLAIMER  THE LAWYER’S OATH  FILIPINOLOSOPHY  PARTNERS  SITEMAP Featured Articles  Best Jobs To Have While Taking Up Law  How To Digest Cases  Miranda Rights in the Philippines  SWA is a Scam!  The Toughest Bar Exams in the World  Is Love Legally Demandable?  Should the 2015 Bar Exams Be Moved? .