Case Summary (G.R. No. L-10520)
Petitioner and Respondent Positions
Petitioners contend that the Senate improperly elected two Nacionalista Senators (Cuenco and Delgado) to the Electoral Tribunal after the Nacionalista Party had already nominated three members, because the Constitution requires the party having the second largest number of votes in the Senate to nominate the other three. They assert the Citizens Party (represented by Senator Tanada) was the party having the second largest number of votes and that only its nominees may fill those three seats. Respondents admit the factual background but defend the Senate’s action on grounds that (a) the judiciary lacks authority to control the Senate’s choice of its Electoral Tribunal members, and (b) the petition fails to state a cause or that petitioner Tanada waived nomination rights by nominating only himself.
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Relevant dates include the Senate sessions of February 21–22, 1956, when organization of the Senate Electoral Tribunal occurred, and the subsequent filing of the instant action. The contested nominations and elections took place on February 22, 1956. The matter proceeded to the Supreme Court for judicial determination of the lawfulness of those acts.
Applicable Law
The Constitution applicable at the time (the pre-1987 Constitution—specifically the constitutional provisions and the 1940 amendment that established Electoral Tribunals) governs. Article VI, Section 11 (as quoted by the Court) prescribes that each Electoral Tribunal be composed of nine members—three Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice and six members of the relevant chamber, “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.” The case analyses statutory and constitutional construction principles, historical records of the Constitutional Convention, and prior judicial precedents bearing on justiciability and separation of powers.
Issue Presented
Primary issue: Whether the Senate’s nomination and election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado—nominated by the floor leader (claiming to act for the Committee on Rules of the Senate and not by the Citizens Party)—violated Article VI, Section 11 by depriving the party having the second largest number of votes (the Citizens Party) of its exclusive nomination right for three Senate members of the Electoral Tribunal.
Court’s Jurisdiction and Justiciability Analysis
The Court held it had jurisdiction and a duty to decide the dispute. It rejected the contention that the matter is a nonjusticiable political question or that the Senate’s internal action is immune from judicial review simply because the Constitution gives the Senate the power to choose its six members. The Court distinguished prior cases that refused to interfere with internal legislative matters, explaining that where constitutional limitations govern the manner in which a power is exercised, courts may determine whether the prescribed method was followed. The Court relied on authorities and doctrine that courts may determine the validity of acts of coordinate branches and that questions involving compliance with constitutional procedure are judicially cognizable rather than purely political.
Constitutional Text and Its Function
The Court emphasized Article VI, Section 11’s twin components: (1) the fixed composition of nine members for each Electoral Tribunal and (2) the prescribed nomination method allocating three seats to the party with the largest number of votes and three to the party with the second largest number of votes. The Court observed both elements appear in the same sentence and must be read together as an integrated scheme designed to secure impartial adjudication of election contests by balancing partisan representation and inserting judicial temper through Supreme Court Justices.
Historical and Purposive Interpretation
The Court reviewed the Constitutional Convention debates and commentary (as summarized in the record) to discern framers’ intent. It found the framers sought to correct partisan abuses by vesting the determination of election contests in a body with equal partisan representation (majority and minority parties) plus three Supreme Court Justices to serve as a moderating, judicial influence. The Court concluded that the structural balance—three majority-party, three minority-party, and three Justices—was essential to the Tribunal’s purpose of preventing majority domination and ensuring impartial decisions.
Mandatory-versus-Directory Construction
Applying principles of statutory and constitutional construction, the Court held that the procedural method of nomination is not a mere directory formality but an essential, substantive component of the Tribunal’s design. Because the equal representation scheme is central to the Tribunal’s remedial purpose, compliance with the nomination prescription is mandatory. The Court rejected reliance on an earlier 1939 opinion of the Secretary of Justice that had construed similar language as permitting substitution of nominations when no minority party representation existed; the Court found that opinion unpersuasive and contrary to the clear text and spirit of the constitutional provision and lacking uniform contemporaneous practice to justify overriding the constitutional meaning.
Application to the Facts and Holding
Applying the mandatory construction to the facts (the Senate comprised 23 Nacionalista Senators and one Citizens Party Senator, Senator Tanada), the Court found that after the Nacionalista Party nominated and had elected three members (Laurel, Lopez, Primicias), the remaining three Senate seats intended to be nominated by the party with the second largest number of votes belonged exclusively to the Citizens Party and thus to Senator Tanada as its representative. Senator Tanada nominated only himself (one Senator). The nominations and subsequent Senate election of two additional Nacionalista Senators (Cuenco and Delgado) upon nomination by Senator Primicias (claiming to act for the Committee on Rules) violated the exclusive nomination right of the party with the second largest number of votes. Consequently, the Court held the nomination and election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado to the Senate Electoral Tribunal were null and void ab initio.
Effect on Appointments of Assistants and Staff
The Court declined to declare the appointments of respondents Alfredo Cruz, Catalina Cayetano, Manuel Serapio, and Placido Reyes void. Although those appointments stemmed from recommendations by Cuenco and Delgado (found not to be lawful members), the Court recognized that the selection of Tribunal personnel is an internal matter of the Tribunal and that the Chairman had appointed them presumably with the consent of the de jure majority of the Tribunal or pursuant to internal rules. The Court left to the Tribunal itself appropriate action respecting those personnel in light of its decision.
Relief and Disposition
Judgment: the Court enjoined Senators Cuenco and Delgado from exercising powers and duties as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal and from participating in Senate Electoral Case No. 4. The petition was dismissed as to the four staff respondents with the foregoing qualification. No special pronouncement as to costs.
Dissenting Opinions — Chief Justice Paras and Justice Labrador (summary)
Chief Justice Paras (dissent) and Justice Labrador (dissent) disagreed with the majority’s mandatory construction. Paras emph
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-10520)
Facts of the Case
- The petitioners are Lorenzo M. Tanada (Senator; President of the Citizens Party) and Diosdado Macapagal (Member of the House of Representatives; Liberal Party official Senate candidate in November 1955 elections).
- After the November 1955 general elections, Pacita Madrigal Warns, Lorenzo Sumulong, Quintin Paredes, Francisco Rodrigo, Pedro Sabido, Claro M. Recto, Domocao Alonto and Decoroso Rosales were proclaimed elected Senators.
- The election of these Senators-elect was contested by petitioner Macapagal with others in Senate Electoral Case No. 4, pending before the Senate Electoral Tribunal.
- On February 22, 1956, the Senate (upon nomination by Senator Cipriano Primicias for the Nacionalista Party) chose Senators Jose P. Laurel, Fernando Lopez and Cipriano Primicias as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal.
- Upon nomination of petitioner Senator Tanada (on behalf of the Citizens Party), Senator Tanada himself was chosen by the Senate as one member of the Tribunal.
- Thereafter, upon nomination by Senator Primicias purportedly on behalf of the Committee on Rules, the Senate chose Senators Mariano J. Cuenco and Francisco A. Delgado as additional members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal.
- The Chairman of the Tribunal appointed Alfredo Cruz and Catalina Cayetano as technical assistant and private secretary, respectively, to Senator Cuenco; and Manuel Serapio and Placido Reyes as technical assistant and private secretary, respectively, to Senator Delgado; Fernando Hipolito is named as Cashier and Disbursing Officer.
- Petitioners instituted the present action seeking to enjoin respondents Cuenco and Delgado (and their appointees Cruz, Cayetano, Serapio, Reyes) from acting as members or occupying offices in the Senate Electoral Tribunal; petitioners also sought to restrain Hipolito from paying the salaries of these appointees pending the action.
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Petitioners sought:
- A preliminary injunction, upon filing of bond, restraining respondents Cuenco, Delgado, Cruz, Cayetano, Serapio and Reyes from acting or exercising the offices they occupied in the Senate Electoral Tribunal, and restraining respondent Hipolito from paying salaries to Cruz, Cayetano, Serapio and Reyes, pending litigation.
- After hearing, permanent ouster of said respondents from the aforesaid public offices with costs.
- Respondents admitted the main factual allegations except as to the legality and validity of the election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado to the Tribunal and of the appointments of Cruz, Cayetano, Serapio and Reyes.
- Respondents pleaded among other defenses: (a) this Court lacks power, authority or jurisdiction to direct or control the Senate's choice of Tribunal members; (b) petition states no cause of action because Senator Tanada allegedly exhausted his right to nominate by nominating himself and refusing to nominate two more, estoppel, and that the present action is not the proper remedy.
Relevant Constitutional Provision (Article VI, Section 11)
- The Court quoted Section 11, Article VI, verbatim:
- Each House shall have an Electoral Tribunal as sole judge of contests relating to election, returns and qualifications.
- Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine members: three Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice; the remaining six shall be members of the Senate or House, 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. The Senior Justice shall be Chairman.
- The Court emphasized the italicized phrase establishing the nomination mechanism and the composition of nine members.
Central Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court has jurisdiction to inquire into and determine the constitutionality and validity of the Senate’s nomination and election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal.
- Whether the election by the Senate of Senators Cuenco and Delgado as members of the Tribunal, based on nominations by Senator Primicias purportedly representing the Committee on Rules, violated Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution.
- Whether the appointments of Cruz, Cayetano, Serapio and Reyes as technical assistants and private secretaries (recommended by Cuenco and Delgado) are unlawful and void because made through respondents who allegedly were not lawfully chosen members of the Tribunal.
- Whether Senator Tanada’s nomination of only himself amounted to a waiver that permitted other actors (the Committee on Rules or Senator Primicias) to nominate the remaining two Senators for the Tribunal.
Petitioners’ Contentions
- The Senate consists of 23 Nacionalista Senators and one Citizens Party Senator (Tanada); the party having the second largest number of votes is the Citizens Party.
- The Committee on Rules’ nomination and the Senate’s choice of Cuenco and Delgado acted "absolutely without power or color of authority" and in clear violation of Article VI, Section 11.
- Cuenco and Delgado, in assuming membership and taking the oath, acted without color of appointment or authority and are unlawfully usurping the powers of members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal.
- Consequently, the appointments of Cruz, Cayetano, Serapio and Reyes (made upon recommendation of Cuenco and Delgado) are unlawful and void.
- Petitioners asserted that the nomination of the three Senators by the party having the second largest number of votes is exclusive to that party and cannot be exercised by others or by the Committee on Rules.
- Petitioners prayed for injunctive relief to prevent respondents from acting in the Tribunal and to prevent payment of salaries to the appointees.
Respondents’ Contentions and Defenses
- Main defenses included:
- This Court lacks jurisdiction to direct or control the Senate in choosing Tribunal members, because the Constitution confers that power on the Senate.
- The petition states no cause of action; Senator Tanada exhausted his right to nominate (having nominated himself) and thus waived the right to nominate two more; estoppel; and that the present action is not the appropriate remedy.
- Respondents argued the word "shall" in Article VI, Section 11 (as to the composition of nine members) is mandatory, and where the minority party cannot nominate (because only one or no members of a minority party exist), the majority may nominate to fill the requisite six members so that the Tribunal always has nine members.
- Respondents relied on a 1939 opinion of the Secretary of Justice (Jose A. Abad Santos) which held that the Electoral Commission should have six members chosen by the Assembly despite a single-party Assembly, and that the nomination procedure could not defeat the explicit mandate of six members from the Assembly.
Court’s Jurisdictional Analysis (Majority)
- The Court rejected the contention that it lacked jurisdiction simply because the Constitution confers the power to choose Senators to the Senate.
- The Court distinguished the present action from cases like Alejandrino v. Quezon and Vera v. Avelino, noting this is not an action against the Senate to compel it to allow petitioners to perform duties as members; rather, it asks whether the Senate acted in conformity with the Constitution in choosing members of the Tribunal.
- The Court noted the Senate Electoral Tribunal is not a part of Congress or the Senate for the purpose of immunity from judicial review (citing previous cases such as Angara v. Electoral Commission and Suanes v. Chief Accountant).
- Judicial review of the validity of acts of a coordinate branch is proper where constitutional limitations on exercise of power are in issue; the Court invoked the doctrine of judicial supremacy to justify review.
- The Court agreed it had both jurisdiction and duty to determine whether the Senate’s elections to the Tribunal conformed to constitutional procedure.
Political-Question Doctrine and Justiciability
- The Court considered whether the issue was a non-justiciable political question.
- It quoted authorities (Willoughby, Corpus Juris Secundum) to define "political question" and explained such questions are those reserved to political departments or the people.
- The Court concluded the question here is not political: the Senate is not vested with "full discretionary authority" in nominating members of the Tribunal; the Constitution prescribes the manner of nomination, which is subject to judicial scrutiny.
- The Court held that determining whether an election of public officers complies with constitutional or statutory procedure is for the judiciary.