Santiago v. Guingona, Jr. Ponente: Panganiban, J. Facts: July 27, 1998 With Sen.

n. John Osmea as presiding officer, the Senate convened for the first regular session of the eleventh congress. On the agenda for the day was the election of officers. o Nominated by Sen. Ople to the position of Senate president was Sen. Fernan. Sen. Tatad was also nominated to the same position by Sen. Defensor-Santiago. o Sen. Ople was elected president pro tempore, and Sen. Drilon as majority leader. o Sen. Tatad manifested that, with the agreement of Sen. Defensor-Santiago, allegedly the only other member of the minority, he was assuming the position of minority leader. He avers that those who voted for Sen. Fernan comprised the majority, while those who voted for him, the losing nominee, belonged to the minority. o During the discussion on who should be the members of the minority, Sen. Flavier averred that the Senators belonging to Lakas-NUCD-UMDP numbering seven (7) and, thus, also a minorityhad chosen Sen. Guingona as the minority leader. No consensus was arrived at. The debate on the question continued, with Sen. Tatad and Sen. Defensor-Santiago delivering privilege speeches. On the third session day, the Senate met in caucus, but still failed to resolve the issue. July 30, 1998 Sen. Fernan informed the body that he received a letter signed by the seven senators of Lakas-NUCD-UMDP stating that they had elected Sen. Guingona as the minority leader. By virtue thereof, the Senate President formally recognized Sen. Guingona as the minority leader. July 31, 1998 Sen. Santiago and Sen. Tatad filed an original petition for quo warranto under Rule 66, Sec. 5, Rules of Court, seeking the ouster of Sen. Teofista Guingona, Jr. as minority leader of the Senate and the declaration of Sen. Tatad as the rightful minority leader.

Issues: 1. WON the Court have jurisdiction over the petition 2. WON there is an actual violation of the Constitution 3. WON Respondent Guingona usurped, unlawfully held and exercised the position of Senate minority leader 4. WON Respondent Fernan acted with grave abuse of discretion in recognizing Respondent Guingona as the minority leader Held/Ratio: 1. Yes, the Court has jurisdiction. Petitioners: the court has jurisdiction, citing Avelino v. Cuenco. They aver that the definitions of minority and majority involve an interpretation of the Constitution, specifically Section 16(1), Art. VI, which states that:
[t]he Senate shall elect its president and the House of Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members.

Respondents and the solicitor general: the issue of who is the lawful Senate minority leader is an internal matter pertaining exclusively to the domain of the

legislature, over which the Court has no jurisdiction without transgressing the principle of the separation of powers. o No constitutional issue is involved, as the Constitution does not provide for the office of a minority leader. o Legislature has full discretion to provide for such office and to determine the procedure of selecting its occupant. o Avelino cannot apply, because there was no question that involves the interpretation or application of the Constitution, neither are there peculiar circumstances impelling the Court to assume jurisdiction. Court: Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is determined by the allegations of the complaint or petition, regardless of whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief asserted. In light of the allegations of the petitioners, it is clear that the Court has jurisdiction over the petition. It is well within the power and jurisdiction of the Court to inquire whether indeed the Senate or its officials committed a violation of the Constitution or gravely abused their discretion in the exercise of their functions and prerogatives.

2. No, there is none. Petitioners: The constitutional provision requiring the election of the Senate President by majority vote of all its members carries with it a judicial duty to determine the concepts of minority and majority, as well as who may elect a minority leader. o Majority group of senators who (1) voted for the winning Senate President and (2) accepted committee chairmanships. o Those who voted for the losing nominee and accepted no such chairmanships comprise the minority, whose members should be the one entitled to vote for minority leader. o In view of their interpretation, Respondent Guingona is not the legitimate minority leader, as he voted for Fernan, nor are the senators of Lakas legitimate members of the minority, for they voted for Fernan and accepted committee chairmanships. Respondent: Precedents show that members of the minority were also given committee chairmanships. Furthermore, the nomination of a former Senate President was seconded by a member of a minority. Court: The interpretation made by the petitioners has no clear support from the Constitution, the laws, the Rules of the Senate or even from the practices of the Upper House. o Majority the number greater than half or more than half of any total It does not delineate who comprises the majority, much less the minority. History would show that the majority was the political party with the most members, while the minority normally referred to a party with a lesser number of members. o Majority may also refer to the group, party or faction with the larger number of votes, not necessarily more than one half. Sometimes referred to as a plurality. Minority a group, party, or faction with a smaller number of votes or adherents than the majority.

o o

o o

In a government with a multi-party system such as in the Philippines, there could be several minority parties, one of which has to be identified by the COMELEC as the dominant minority party. Constitution is dead silent on the selection of other officers in the both chambers of Congress. The method of choosing is derivative of the exercise of the prerogative conferred by the pertinent constitutional provision. Such method must be prescribed by the Senate itself, not by the Court. The Rules of the Senate do not provide for the positions of majority and minority leaders. In the absence of constitutional or statutory guidelines, this Court is devoid of any basis upon which to determine the legality of the acts of the Senate relative thereto. Congress has the power and prerogative for such officers as it may deem. The Court has no authority to interfere into that exclusive realm, without violating the principle of the separation of powers.

3. No, he did not. Court: Usurpation generally refers to unauthorized arbitrary assumption and exercise of power by one without color of title or who is not entitled to law thereto. o Quo warranto is the proper legal remedy in such a case, as it determines the right or title to the contested public office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment. For it to be successful, the person suing must show that he or she has a clear right to the contested office. Petitioners present no sufficient proof of a clear and indubitable franchise to the office of the Senate minority leader. o Absence of guidelines makes it impossible to determine if there was irregularity or illegality in the election of Respondent Guingona. o No grave abuse of discretion has been shown to characterize any his specific acts as minority leader. 4. No, he did not. Court: Based on the definition of grave abuse of discretion (capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment), Respondent Fernan clearly did not gravely abuse his discretion in recognizing Respondent Guingona as Senate minority leader. o Respondent Guingona belonged to Lakas, one of the minority parties in the Senate. By unanimous resolution of the members of the aforementioned party that he be the minority leader, he was recognized as such by the Senate President after at least two Senate sessions and a caucus, wherein both sides were allowed to articulate their standpoints. Wherefore, for the above reasons, the petition is hereby dismissed. Mendoza, J., (Concurring and Dissenting): The Court has no jurisdiction over the case at bar. The question who constitute the minority in the Senate entitled to elect the minority leader of that chamber is

political. It respects the internal affairs of a coequal department of the government. Courts have no power to inquire into the internal organization and business sof a house of Congress, except as the question affects the rights of third parties or a specific constitutional limitation is involved. Dean Sinco has pointed out that the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate are not state officers. They do not attain these positions by popular vote but only by the vote of their respective chambers. They receive their mandate as such not from the voters but from their peers in the house. o While their offices are a constitutional creation, nevertheless they are only legislative officers. It is their position as members of Congress which gives them the status of state officers. As presiding officers of their respective chambers, their election as well as removal is determined by the vote of the majority of the members of the house to which they belong. This case involves neither an infringement of specific constitutional limitations nor a violation of the rights of a party not a member of Congress. This Court has jurisdiction over this case only in the sense that determining whether the question involved is reserved to Congress is itself an exercise of jurisdiction in the same way that a court which dismisses a case for lack of jurisdiction must in a narrow sense have jurisdiction since it cannot dismiss the case if it were otherwise. The determination of whether the question involved is justiciable or not is in itself a process of constitutional interpretation.