Case Summary (G.R. No. 60098)
Key Dates
- February 18, 1949: Senator Tanada reserved his one-hour privilege to speak on February 21; photostatic checks and initial charges against petitioner were displayed in Senate.
- February 21, 1949: Contested Senate session; filing and subsequent approval of Resolution No. 68 (investigatory resolution) and Resolution No. 67 (declaring the presidency vacant and designating respondent Acting President). Petitioner Avelino left the session hall after declaring adjournment; a rump session of remaining senators continued and elected respondent.
- March 4, 1949: Initial Supreme Court resolution (vote 6–4) denying Avelino’s quo warranto petition for lack of jurisdiction.
- March 14, 1949: Resolution on motion for reconsideration: the Court (majority of seven) assumed jurisdiction and declared there was a quorum; petition dismissed.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Provision
Constitutional basis applied: the Constitution in force at the time (the 1935 Constitution as amended). Material constitutional provision invoked: Article VI, Section 10 (subsection 2): "A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner and under such penalties as such House may provide." Relevant Senate rules on quorum, roll call, and compulsion of attendance were also considered.
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
Petitioner invoked quo warranto in the Supreme Court asking the Court to declare him the rightful President of the Senate and to oust respondent. The central relief sought was judicial recognition that respondent’s election was invalid and that the petitioner remained the lawful presiding officer.
Essential Facts Established
- Senator Tanada announced charges and had reserved the privilege hour for February 21; Tanada and Sanidad filed a resolution (Resolution No. 68) alleging serious charges against petitioner.
- On February 21, although a sufficient number had been present earlier, petitioner delayed opening the session, read the charges in public, conferred with allies, and, after procedural skirmishes (oppositions to dispensing with roll call and reading minutes), petitioner announced adjournment and left the hall with nine supporting senators.
- Twelve senators remained; Senate President Pro-Tempore Arranz took the Chair, the remaining senators continued the session, Tanada delivered his privilege speech, Resolution No. 68 was read and approved, and Resolution No. 67 (declaring the presidency vacant and designating Cuenco Acting President) was unanimously approved by those present. Cuenco took oath and was recognized by the President of the Philippines.
Issues Presented to the Court
- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over this controversy involving the leadership of the Senate?
- If jurisdiction exists, were Resolutions Nos. 68 and 67 validly approved (i.e., was there a constitutional quorum and was the session legally continued)?
- Should the petition for quo warranto be granted (i.e., should Avelino be reinstated as Senate President)?
Initial Resolution (March 4, 1949) — Majority Rationale (6–4)
- Primary holding: The Court initially resolved (6–4) to deny the petition on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction.
- Reasoning: The majority emphasized separation of powers and the political character of the dispute, noting precedent and the constitutional grant to the Senate to elect its own president. The majority considered the controversy essentially political and better resolved within the Senate chamber. The Court declined to intervene even though it acknowledged the practical consequences, emphasizing that the senators themselves could remedy any internal leadership dispute by acting in the Senate session hall. The majority distinguished the present case from scenarios warranting judicial intervention (e.g., two functionally separate legislatures claiming legitimacy), concluding that the judiciary should not supplant the Senate’s internal processes.
Views in the Initial Resolution on Quorum (Members Who Addressed It)
- Four justices (Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon) writing as part of the same disposition indicated that, supposing jurisdiction existed, the rump session under Arranz was a continuation of the morning session and that a minority of ten senators could not prevent the other twelve from acting; they stated that twelve senators would constitute a constitutional majority because Senator Confesor was absent from the country, making the active membership effectively twenty-three (thus twelve being a majority). They also suggested practical remedies available to the twelve (compel attendance, arrest absent members) and recommended that a subsequent full-quorum session could ratify and eliminate doubt.
Principal Dissenting Opinions in the First Resolution (Major Themes)
- Chief Justice Moran (dissent): Argued the Court had jurisdiction. He viewed the dispute as a constitutional and not merely political question because it concerned the legal capacity of the Cuenco group to act as a Senate (quorum), and absent a judicial resolution the validity of legislation and official acts would be cast into doubt. Moran concluded respondent was not legally elected because the roll call showed only twelve senators present and the Senate comprised twenty-four members, requiring thirteen for a quorum. He urged strict adherence to constitutional requirements and recommended a plenary session with a proper quorum to resolve the matter definitively.
- Justice Perfecto (dissent): Treated the matter as justiciable, held petitioner’s adjournment was illegal, and concluded that the rump session lacked the constitutional quorum (13 of 24) so respondent’s election was invalid; he would grant the petition.
- Justice Briones and Justice Tuason (dissents): Advanced similar positions emphasizing that the constitutional quorum is a majority of all elected and qualified members (13 of 24), that petitioner’s unilateral adjournment was improper, and that the rump session’s acts were void without a proper quorum; the Court should assume jurisdiction to resolve the crisis and prevent dual claimants and paralysis of government functions.
Legal Arguments on Quorum — Competing Interpretations
- Majority-concerned views (in later reconsideration and some concurring opinions): Interpreted "majority of each House" in light of practical membership (excluding a senator absent abroad) so that, with one senator absent from the jurisdiction (Confesor), twelve constituted a majority of those who could effectively participate; thus, the twelve remaining senators constituted a constitutional quorum for purposes of the contested session. Ancillary reasoning emphasized the peculiar circumstances, the evidence that, if a new full quorum met, the same outcome would occur, and the need to prevent paralysis.
- Dissenting views (Moran, Perfecto, Briones, Tuason): Held to the stricter mathematical interpretation that the Senate consisted of twenty-four members and a majority requires more than one-half (thirteen). They insisted absence abroad does not reduce the denominator for quorum computation. They viewed petitioner’s declared adjournment as improper when opposed and thus concluded the rump meeting lacked constitutional quorum and its acts (including electing respondent) were invalid.
Motion for Reconsideration — Subsequent Resolution (March 14, 1949)
- The Court revisited the earlier disposition in light of subsequent events and, by a majority of seven, assumed jurisdiction and declared there was a quorum when respondent was elected; the Court therefore held respondent Mariano J. Cuenco had been legally elected as Senate President and dismissed the petition with costs against petitioner.
- The Court’s reconsideration majority grounded its change both on developments after the initial resolution (which made intervention more imperative) and on the legal analyses offered in several opinions (including those urging assumption of jurisdiction). The Chief Justice concurred in result and emphasized the peculiar circumstances that reduced the congressional quorum requirement to a formalism under the facts (including attempts to compel attendance that were frustrated), and favored a pragmatic solution consonant with substantial justice and public interest.
Concurrences and Dissents on Reconsideration
- Justices Paras and Bengzon: Paras concurred in the result; Bengzon dissented on jurisdiction but concurred on quorum.
- Justices Tuason and Montemayor: Tuason concurred on jurisdiction but dissented on quorum (he adhered to the view that twelve was not a constitutional quorum); Montemayor dissented on jurisdiction and reserved his vote on quorum. Justice Reyes reserved the right to state reasons. Several justices (Feria, Perfecto, Briones) had earlier elaborated separate written opinions arguing for assumption of jurisdiction and, in various forms, requesting strict application of constitutional quorum rules or, as to Perfecto in subsequent commentary, that the practical effect (petitioner’s effective abandonment) could justify affirming respondent’s acting status; their separate writings informed the majority’s reconsideration.
Co
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 60098)
Facts of the Case
- On February 18, 1949, Senator Lorenzo M. Tanada announced in the Senate his intention to reserve the one-hour privilege for February 21, 1949, to present charges against then Senate President Jose Avelino; the reservation was approved.
- Hours before the February 21, 1949 session, Senators Tanada and Prospero Sanidad filed with the Secretary of the Senate a resolution (Resolution No. 68) seeking investigation of charges against Senate President Jose Avelino; the resolution alleged serious improprieties including large checks deposited in the accounts of Avelino’s family members and speeches advocating tolerance of graft.
- At the scheduled opening (10:00 A.M.) of the February 21 session a sufficient number of senators were in the Senate hall, but petitioner Avelino delayed his appearance until about 11:35 A.M.
- When Avelino finally ascended the rostrum he did not immediately open session; he requested a copy of the Tanada/Sanidad resolution, read it aloud slowly in the presence of the public, and conferred with his followers Senators Francisco and Tirona.
- Shortly before noon, after insistent requests from Senators Sanidad and Cuenco, Avelino called the meeting to order.
- Senator Sanidad moved to dispense with roll call (a customary practice); Senator Tirona opposed that motion. The roll call was taken and showed the presence of twenty-two named senators (all except Senators Sotto and Confesor).
- Senator Sanidad then moved to dispense with the reading of the minutes; Senators Tirona and David opposed, and the minutes were read.
- Senator Tanada repeatedly attempted to claim his right to deliver his one-hour privilege speech before and after roll call and the reading of minutes, but Avelino, then presiding, ignored him and threatened to order the arrest of any senator who would speak without recognition by the Chair.
- Disorder arose in the gallery contemporaneously with the floor dispute; the record contains divergent accounts as to whether shots were fired and the extent of violence.
- Senator Pablo Angeles David (an Avelino partisan) was recognized and moved to adjourn; Senators Sanidad and Cuenco opposed or moved that the adjournment motion be submitted to a vote.
- Suddenly, Avelino banged the gavel, abandoned the Chair and left the session hall, followed by Senators David, Tirona, Francisco, Torres, Magalona and Clarin; twelve senators (including Cuenco and Sanidad) remained in the hall.
- Melecio Arranz, Senate President Pro-Tempore, took the Chair and urged continuation of the session to prevent paralysis of Senate functions; the senators present unanimously designated Mariano J. Cuenco to preside.
- Gregorio Abad was appointed Acting Secretary (Assistant Secretary had followed Avelino out).
- Senator Tanada was recognized and delivered his privilege speech; Resolution No. 68 was read in full and unanimously approved by those present.
- Resolution No. 67 (declaring the Presidency of the Senate vacant and designating Mariano J. Cuenco Acting President of the Senate) was introduced, put to a vote and unanimously approved by those present; Cuenco took the oath of office.
- The President of the Philippines recognized respondent Cuenco as Acting President of the Senate the next day.
- Petitioner Avelino filed a quo warranto petition in the Supreme Court asking to be declared the rightful President of the Senate and to oust respondent Cuenco.
Procedural Posture and Primary Questions Presented
- The Supreme Court first resolved by a vote of six justices against four to deny the petition (initial resolution), briefly explaining principal grounds for denial without prejudice to a more extended opinion.
- The Court identified the crucial legal questions as:
- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over the subject matter?
- If it does, were Resolutions Nos. 68 and 67 validly approved?
- Should the petition be granted (i.e., should Avelino be declared rightful President and Cuenco ousted)?
Initial Majority Reasoning (First Resolution — Denial of Petition)
- The majority concluded that the Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the controversy primarily because:
- The controversy was political in nature and implicated separation of powers principles.
- The selection of a presiding officer was entrusted to the Senate by the Constitution and normally not for judicial interference (citing prior cases: Alejandrino v. Quezon; Vera v. Avelino; Mabanag v. Lopez Vito).
- The dispute essentially concerned internal Senate organization and the will of the senators themselves; the proper remedy, if the majority wished Avelino to preside, lay within the Senate chamber and not the judiciary.
- Executive recognition of Cuenco by the President counseled further restraint by the judiciary.
- The majority nevertheless explained established facts and accepted the precise chronology as relevant, but declined judicial intervention despite the potential for crisis.
- The majority also noted that four justices (in a separate view) addressed quorum and related sub-questions: (1) whether the rump session under Arranz was a continuation of the morning session; (2) whether there was a quorum in that rump session.
- The four justices who considered the quorum issues concluded unanimously (among them) that the session under Arranz was a continuation of the morning session and that a minority of ten senators could not, by leaving, prevent the remaining twelve from passing resolutions unanimously.
- Those justices held that even if the constitutional majority requirement were strictly interpreted, the absence of Senator Tomas Confesor in the United States made the Senate’s full complement twenty-three for practical purposes, so that twelve constituted a constitutional majority (i.e., a majority of twenty-three).
- One justice further opined that, even if the twelve did not constitute quorum, they could have ordered the arrest of at least one absent member to secure a quorum.
Initial Vote and Disposition (First Resolution)
- The initial resolution denying the petition was by vote of six justices to four.
- The petition was dismissed without costs in that initial resolution.
Opinions Dissenting/Concurring in the First Resolution — Chief Justice Moran (Dissent)
- Chief Justice Moran (dissenting) believed the Court had jurisdiction and should intervene because:
- The legal capacity of the Cuenco group to act as a Senate was being directly challenged and that constitutional question could not be legitimately resolved by either group alone.
- If the Cuenco group lacked a valid quorum, its proceedings should be voided; conversely, if valid their acts should be free from interference.
- Unsettled legal capacity between two rival groups would generate national uncertainty, affect other government agencies and could produce grave danger; judicial resolution was therefore imperative.
- On the merits Moran C.J. argued that:
- Although Avelino’s adjournment of the session may have been illegal, the Cuenco election was also illegal because when the roll was called only twelve senators were present.
- Given the Philippines had twenty-four senators, the constitutional quorum was thirteen; leading authorities interpreted “majority” as more than half of the whole membership and vacancies or absentees could not be deducted in computing quorum.
- Therefore Cuenco had not been legally elected as Acting President; the proper course was to insist on strict constitutional principle and have the Cuenco group obtain a new session with thirteen senators to ratify acts.
- Moran concluded that, absent clear agreement among justices, the legal question of Cuenco’s election remained doubtful and that petitioner should prevail if the Court assumed jurisdiction.