You are on page 1of 8

On February 18, 1949, Senator Lorenzo Taada 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 Taada,
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 Taada from delivering his piece. Motions being raised by Taada et al were being
blocked by Avelino and his allies and they even ruled Taada and Sanidad, among others,
as being out of order. Avelinos 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. Taada was subsequently recognized to deliver his speech. Later,
Arranz yielded to Sanidads 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
President.
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.

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

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

Read full text

ADVERTISEMENTS

Related Posts

AVELINO vs CUENCO (March 14, 1949)

AVELINO vs CUENCO (March 4, 1949)

Lorenzo Taada vs Mariano Cuenco

Ramon Gonzales vs COMELEC

Felix Barcelon vs Colonel Baker of the Philippine Constabulary

TAADA vs CUENCO

Comments
0 comments
83 Phil. 17, adjournment, Avelino vs Cuenco, case digest, constitutional law, Election of Members,G.R.
No. L-2821, Jose Avelino vs Mariano Cuenco, Justiciable Question, legislative
department,minutes, political law, political question, quorum, separation of powers
Go To Top

Leave a Comment

SUBMIT COMMENT

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.


Notify me of new posts by email.

Sponsored Links
Find UberDigests on Facebook
Site Owner: Atty. Howard Chan

Licudine and Associates Law Office


2nd Flr., CAREMCO Bldg., DENR-LMS Cmpd.,
#79 D. Silang St., Baguio City 2600
(74) 422-2551
howard@uberdigests.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

Remedial Law

Mercantile Law

Taxation Law

Statutory Construction

Disclaimer
Any opinion, information or remark made on this site, including any response to queries or
comments posted, 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.
This blog was started by the owner, Howard Chan, when he was still a law student. He passed
the 2014 bar exams and was admitted to the bar on April 29, 2015. Thus, distinctions must be
made between posts, comments, and opinions made by the author before and after admission
to the bar.
The author is now part of a law firm in the City of Baguio (Licudine and Associates Law
Office). Any posts, comments, and opinions posted herein by the author is in no way and
should never be construed as attributable to said law office.

Digests and other resources within this site are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License unless otherwise indicated.

Browse Our Pages

ABOUT UBER DIGESTS

TERMS OF USE

PRIVACY POLICY

DISCLAIMER

THE LAWYERS 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?