You are on page 1of 2


members, since it is a constitutional right
AL. granted to Senate. Moreover, the petition is
Petition for Certiorari & Preliminary Injunction without cause of action since Tañada
exhausted his right to nominate 2 more
Ponente: Justice Concepcion senators; he is in estoppel. They contend that
Personalities: Lorenzo Tañada the present action is not the proper remedy,
Diosdado Macapagal but an appeal to public opinion.
Mariano Jesus Cuenco
Francisco Delgado 1. WON Court has jurisdiction over the
Alfredo Cruz matter
Catalina Cayetano 2. WON Constitutional right of CP can
Manuel Serapio be exercised by NP, or the Committee
Placido Reyes on Rules for the Senate
Fernando Hipolito
Respondents HELD:
Tañada, Teehankee & Macapagal
for petitioners 1. Yes. The Court has jurisdiction.

Solicitior General Ambrosio Padilla RATIO: The case at bar is not an action
Solicitor Troadio Quizon Jr. against the Senate compelling them to allow
For respondents petitioners to exercise duties as members of
ET. The ET is part of neither House, even if
FACTS: the Senate elects its members. The issue is
On Feb. 22, 1956, the Senate on not the power of the Senate to elect or
behalf of the Nacionalista Party elected nominate, but the validity of the manner by
respondents Cuenco & Delgado as members which power was exercised (constitutionality).
of the Senate Electoral Tribunal upon the The Court is concerned with the existence and
nomination of Senator Primicias, an NP extent of said discretionary powers.
member. The two seats, originally for minority
party nominees, were filled with NP members 2. No.
to meet the Constitutional mandate under Sec.
2 Art. 6, over the objections of lone Citizen RATIO: Although respondents allege that the
Party Senator Tañada. Consequently, the Constitutional mandate of 6 Senate members
Chairman of the Tribunal appointed the rest of in the ET must be followed, this cannot be
the respondents as staff members of Cuenco done without violating the spirit & philosophy
& Delgado. Petitioner alleges that the of Art. 6, Sec. 2, which is to provide against
nomination by Sen. Primicias on behalf of the partisan decisions. The respondents' practical
Committee on Rules for the Senate, violates interpretation of the law (modifying law to fit
Sec. 2, Art. 6 of PC, since 3 seats on the ET the situation) cannot be accepted; although
are reserved for minority senators duly they followed mandate on number, they
nominated by the minority party disobeyed mandate on procedure. The
representatives. Furthermore, as respondents contention that petitioner Tañada waived his
are about to decide on Electoral Case No. 4 of rights or is in estoppel is not tenable. When
Senate, the case at bar is a violation not only interests of public policy & morals are at issue,
of Tañada's right as CP member of ET, but the power to waive is inexistent. Tañada never
respondent Macapagal's right to an impartial led Primicias to believe that his nominations
body that will try his election protest. on behalf of the CP are valid.
Petitioners pray for a writ of preliminary
injunction against respondents (cannot
exercise duties), to be made permanent after
The Senate cannot elect members of
a judgment to oust respondents is passed.
the ET not nominated by the proper party, nor
Respondents contend that the Court is without
can the majority party elect more than 3
jurisdiction to try the appointment of ET
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.

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.


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.