VERA V.

AVELINO

Facts:

The Commission on Elections submitted last May 1946 to the President and the Congress a
report regarding the national elections held in 1946. It stated that by reason of certain specified
acts of terrorism and violence in certain provinces, namely Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Bulacan
and Tarlac, the voting in said region did not reflect the accurate feedback of the local electorate.

During the session on May 25, 1946, a pendatum resolution was approved referring to the
report ordering that Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose E. Romero – who had been
included among the 16 candidates for senator receiving the highest number of votes and as
proclaimed by the Commissions on Elections – shall not be sworn, nor seated, as members of
the chamber, pending the termination of the protest filed against their election.

Petitioners then immediately instituted an action against their colleagues who instituted the
resolution, praying for its annulment and allowing them to occupy their seats and to exercise
their senatorial duties. Respondents assert the validity of the pendatum resolution.

Issues:

Whether or Not the Commission on Elections has the jurisdiction to determine whether or not
votes cast in the said provinces are valid.

Whether or Not the administration of oath and the sitting of Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and
Jose Romero should be deferred pending hearing and decision on the protests lodged against
their elections.

Held:

The Supreme Court refused to intervene, under the concept of separation of powers, holding
that the case was not a “contest”, and affirmed that it is the inherent right of the legislature to
determine who shall be admitted to its membership. Following the powers assigned by the
Constitution, the question raised was political in nature and therefore not under the juridical
review of the courts

The case is therefore dismissed.