AVELINO VS. CUENCO

(Citation: 83 Phil 17)

Facts:

On 18 Feb 1949, Senator Tañada invoked his right to speak on the senate floor

to formulate charges against the then Senate President Avelino. He request to do

so on the next session (21 Feb 1949). On the next session however, Avelino

delayed the opening of the session for about two hours. Upon insistent demand

by Tañada, Cuenco and Sanidad and others, Avelino was forced to open

session. He however, together with his allies initiated all dilatory and delaying

tactics to forestall Tañada from delivering his piece.

Motions being raised by Tañada et al were being blocked by Avelino and his

allies and they even ruled Tañada and Sanidad, among others, as being out of

order.  

Avelino’s 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 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 Arranz and the remaining members of the Senate to continue the

session in order not to paralyze the functions of the Senate.

Tanada was subsequently recognized to deliver his speech. Later, Arranz yielded

to Sanidad’s 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 Supreme Court can take cognizance/judicial intervention of

the case?

Ruling: 

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.

When faced with a justiciable controversy, the Philippine Supreme Court could

dismiss the case because the issue involves a political question and necessarily

begs off deciding it. In the case of Sanidad vs. Comelec (G.R. L-44640, 12

October 1976), the Philippine Supreme Court had the occassion to define it as

such:At the threshold, it is necessary to clarify what is a "political question". It

must be noted that this device has been utilized by the judiciary "to avoid

determining questions it is ill equipped to determine or that could be settled in

any event only with the effective support of the political branches." According to

Weston, judges, whether "personal representatives of a truly sovereign king, or

taking their seats as the creatures of a largely popular sovereignty speaking

through a written constitution, derive their power by a delegation, which clearly or

obscurely as the case may be, delineates and delimits their delegated

jurisdiction. . . . Judicial questions . . . are those which the sovereign has set to

be decided in the courts. Political question, similarly, are those which the

sovereign has entrusted to the so-called political departments of government or

has reserved to be settled by its own extra-governmental action." Reflecting a

similar concept, this Court has defined a "political question" as a "matter which is

to be exercised by the people in their primary political capacity or that has been

specifically delegated to some other department or particular officer of the

government, with discretionary power to act." In other words, 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 legislative or executive branch of government.