DIGEST
Avelino vs Cuenco
83 PHIL 17, March 4, 1949
JOSE AVELINO, petitioner,
vs.
MARIANO J. CUENCO, respondent
 Facts:
1. In a session of the Senate, Tanada’s request to
deliver a speech in order to formulate charges against
then Senate President Avelino was approved. With the
leadership of the Senate President followed by his
supporters, they deliberately tried to delay and prevent
Tanada from delivering his speech. Before Senator
Tañada could deliver his privilege speech to formulate
charges against the incumbent Senate President, the
petitioner, motu propio adjourned the session of the
Senate and walked out with his followers.
2. Senator Cabili request to made the following
incidents into a record:
1. The deliberate abandonment of the Chair by
the petitioner, made it incumbent upon Senate
President Pro-tempore Arranz and the remaining
members of the Senate to continue the session in
order not to paralyze the functions of the Senate.
2. Senate President Pro-tempore Arranz
suggested that respondent be designated to preside
over the session which suggestion was carried
unanimously.
3. The respondent, Senator Mariano Cuenco,
thereupon took the Chair.
3. Gregorio Abad was appointed Acting Secretary upon
motion of Senator Arranz, because the Assistance
Secretary, who was then acting as Secretary, had
followed the petitioner when the latter abandoned the
session.
4. Senator Tañada, after being recognized by the
Chair, was then finally able to deliver his privilege
speech. Thereafter Senator Sanidad read aloud the
complete text of said Resolution (No. 68), and
submitted his motion for approval thereof and the same
was unanimously approved.
5. The petitioners, Senator Jose Avelino, in a quo
warranto proceeding, asked the court to declare him the
rightful Senate President and oust the respondent,
Mariano Cuenco, contending that the latter had not
been validly elected because twelve members did not
constitute a quorum – the majority required of the 24-
member Senate.
 Issues:
1. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction on subject
matter.
2. Whether or not Resolutions 67 and 68 was validly
approved.
3. Whether or not the petitioner be granted to declare
him the rightful President of the Philippines Senate and
oust respondent.
Rulings:
In the resolution of the case, the Court held that:
DIGEST
1. The Supreme Court held that they cannot take
cognizance of the case. The court will be against the
doctrine of separation of powers.
1. 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.
2. The court will not interfere 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. 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.
2. Yes, it was validly constituted, supposing that the
Court has jurisdiction.
1. Justice Paras, Feria, Pablo and Bengzon say
there was the majority required by the Constitution
for the transaction of the business of the Senate,
because, firstly, the minute say so, secondly,
because at the beginning of such session there were
at least fourteen senators including Senators
Pendatun and Lopez, and thirdly because in view of
the absence from the country of Senator Tomas
Confesor twelve senators constitute a majority of the
Senate of twenty-three senators.
2. 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 “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.
3. The Court adopts a hands-off policy on this matter.
1. The Court found it injudicious to declare the
petitioner as the rightful President of the Senate,
since the office 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.
2. 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.
 
Hence, by a vote of 6 to 4, The Supreme Court dismissed
the petition on the ground as it involved a political question.
The Supreme Court 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.