LORENZO M.

TAÑADA and DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL, petitioners,
vs.
MARIANO JESUS CUENCO, FRANCISCO A. DELGADO, ALFREDO CRUZ,
CATALINA CAYETANO, MANUEL SERAPIO, PLACIDO
REYES, and FERNANDO HIPOLITO in his capacity as cashier and
disbursing officer, respondents.

G.R. No. L-10520 | 103 Phil 1051 | February 28, 1957 | En Banc | Justice
Concepcion

Political and International Law | Constitutional Law | Separation of

Powers | Political Question

The term “political question” connotes xxx a question of policy. It refers to

those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the
people in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the xxx branch of the government.

FACTS:

Pending before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) was an election protest filed by
members of the Citizens Party (CP) who lost to members of the Nacionalista Party (NP).
The Senate was at the time composed of 23 members of the NP and one of the CP —
petitioner Sen. Tañ ada. When the SET was being organized, Sen. Tañ ada, in behalf of the CP,
nominated himself alone. Sen. Primicias, a member of the NP, then nominated “not on
behalf of the [NP] but on behalf of the Committee on Rules of the Senate” Sens. Delgado and
respondent Cuenco “to complete the membership of the Tribunal”. This he claims is the
mandate of the Constitution which reads: “xxx Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of
nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court xxx and the remaining
six shall be Members of the [House] who shall be chosen by each House, three upon
nomination of the party having the largest number of votes and three of the party having
the second largest number of votes therein. xxx.” Over the objection of Sen. Tañ ada, Sens.
Delgado and Cuenco were chosen to sit in the SET. Sen. Tañ ada now contests them in Court.
Respondents aver, among others, that the SC has no jurisdiction on the matter as the issue
is a political question and not judicial.

ISSUE:

Is the issue a political question beyond the ambit of judicial inquiry?

RULING:

No. The issue at bar is not a political question for the Senate is not clothed with “full
discretionary authority” in the choice of members of the SET.¹ The exercise of its power
thereon is subject to constitutional limitations. It is clearly within the legitimate prove of
the judicial department to pass upon the validity the proceedings in connection therewith.
We have not only jurisdiction, but also the duty to consider and determine the principal
issue² raised by the parties herein.

¹ The question is said to be political when it is a matter which is to be exercised by the

people in their primary political capacity. It is judicial when it is a matter that has been
specifically delegated to some other department or particular officer of the government,
with discretionary power to act. In short, the term “political question” connotes a question
of policy; that is, it refers to “those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be
decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the Legislature or Executive branch of the Government.” It
is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.
(Tañ ada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil 1051)

² On the issue on whether the election of Sens. Delgado and Cuenco is valid, the Court ruled
in the negative. It was held that the clear intention of the framers of the Constitution in
prescribing the manner for organizing the Electoral Tribunals is to prevent the majority
party from ever controlling the Electoral Tribunals, and that the structure thereof be
founded upon the equilibrium between the majority and the minority parties with the
Justices of the SC to insure greater political justice in the determination of election contests.
Thus, the party having the largest number of votes in the Senate may nominate not more
than three members thereof to the SET, and the party having the second largest number of
votes in the Senate has the exclusive right to nominate the other three Senators. The Senate
may not elect, as members of the SET, those who have not been nominated by the political
parties specified in the Constitution; hence, the Committee on Rules for the Senate has no
standing to validly make such nomination. (Ibid.)