AVELINO VS.

CUENCO Case Digest

Facts:
1. In a session of the Senate, Tanada’s request to deliver a speech in order to formulate charges
against then Senate President Avelino was approved. With the leadership of the Senate President
followed by his supporters, they deliberately tried to delay and prevent Tanada from delivering his
speech. Before Senator Tañada could deliver his privilege speech to formulate charges against the
incumbent Senate President, the petitioner, motu propio adjourned the session of the Senate and
walked out with his followers.
2. Senator Cabili request to made the following incidents into a record:
1. The deliberate abandonment of the Chair by the petitioner, 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.
2. Senate President Pro-tempore Arranz suggested that respondent be designated to
preside over the session which suggestion was carried unanimously.
3. The respondent, Senator Mariano Cuenco, thereupon took the Chair.
3. Gregorio Abad was appointed Acting Secretary upon motion of Senator Arranz, because the
Assistance Secretary, who was then acting as Secretary, had followed the petitioner when the latter
abandoned the session.
4. Senator Tañada, after being recognized by the Chair, was then finally able to deliver his privilege
speech. Thereafter Senator Sanidad read aloud the complete text of said Resolution (No. 68), and
submitted his motion for approval thereof and the same was unanimously approved.
5. The petitioners, Senator Jose Avelino, in a quo warranto proceeding, asked the court to declare
him the rightful Senate President and oust the respondent, Mariano Cuenco, contending that the
latter had not been validly elected because twelve members did not constitute a quorum – the
majority required of the 24-member Senate.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction on subject matter.
2. Whether or not Resolutions 67 and 68 was validly approved.
3. Whether or not the petitioner be granted to declare him the rightful President of the Philippines
Senate and oust respondent.

Rulings:
In the resolution of the case, the Court held that:
1. The Supreme Court held that they cannot take cognizance of the case. The court will be against
the doctrine of separation of powers.
1. 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.
2. The court will not interfere in this case because the selection of the presiding officer affect
only the Senators themselves who are at liberty at any time to choose their officers, change or
reinstate them. 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.
2. Yes, it was validly constituted, supposing that the Court has jurisdiction.
1. Justice Paras, Feria, Pablo and Bengzon say there was the majority required by the
Constitution for the transaction of the business of the Senate, because, firstly, the minute say so,
secondly, because at the beginning of such session there were at least fourteen senators
including Senators Pendatun and Lopez, and thirdly because in view of the absence from the
country of Senator Tomas Confesor twelve senators constitute a majority of the Senate of twenty-
three senators.
2. When the Constitution declares that a majority of “each House” shall constitute a quorum,
“the House: does not mean “all” the members. Even a majority of all the members constitute “the
House”. There is a difference between a majority of “the House”, the latter requiring less number
 than the first. Therefore an absolute majority (12) of all the members of the Senate less one (23),
constitutes constitutional majority of the Senate for the purpose of a quorum.
3. The Court adopts a hands-off policy on this matter.
1. The Court found it injudicious to declare the petitioner as the rightful President of the
Senate, since the office depends exclusively upon the will of the majority of the senators, the rule
of the Senate about tenure of the President of that body being amenable at any time by that
majority.
2. At any session hereafter held with thirteen or more senators, in order to avoid all
controversy arising from the divergence of opinion here about quorum and for the benefit of all
concerned, the said twelve senators who approved the resolutions herein involved could ratify all
their acts and thereby place them beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Hence, by a vote of 6 to 4, The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground as it involved a
political question. The Supreme Court 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.

017 AVELINO vs. CUENCO AUTHOR:

[G.R. No. L-2821; March 4, 1949 ] NOTES: (if applicable)
TOPIC: Quorum & Attendance
PONENTE:

FACTS:
On February 21, 1949, Sen. Tanada filed with the Senate Secretary charges against Senate
President Avelino. Sen. Tanada requested to give a privilege speech during the session. Sen. Tanada’s
motions were continuously denied of the common courtesy and ruling Sen. Sanidad and Tanada “out of
order!”. Senator Avelino along with other Senators, walked-out of the session hall. Senate President
Pro-Tempore Arranz issued Resolution No. 67 and 68 declaring the vacancy of the position of Senate
President and installing Hon. Cuenco as Acting Senate President. These resolutions were voted and
unanimously approved.
Thus, Avelino filed a petition before the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court with a
vote of 6 out of the 10 Justices present, decided to deny the petition stating that the Court has no
jurisdiction on the case. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. The SC with a majority vote of
seven, granted the motion and took cognizance over the case.

ISSUE(S): WON the 12 Senators who installed Cuenco as the Acting President of the Senate
constituted a quorum?
HELD: YES

RATIO:
YES. Supreme Court held that there is a quorum that the 12 senators being the majority of 23
Senators. Resolution Nos. 67 and 68 are valid. Sen. Cuenco has been legally elected as Senate
President. PETITION DISMISSED.

If the rump session was not a continuation of the morning session, was it validly constituted? In other
words, was there the majority required by the Constitution for the transaction of the business of the
Senate? Justice Paras, Feria, Pablo and Bengzon say there was, firstly because the minute say so,
secondly, because at the beginning of such session there were at least fourteen senators including
Senators Pendatun and Lopez, and thirdly because in view of the absence from the country of Senator
Tomas Confesor twelve senators constitute a majority of the Senate of twelve three senators. When the
Constitution declares that a majority of "each House" shall constitute aquorum, "the House: does not
mean "all" the members. Even a majority of all the members constitute "the House". (Missouri
Pac. vs. Kansas, 63 Law ed. [U. S.], p. 239). There is a difference between a majority of "the House",
the latter requiring less number than the first. Therefore an absolute majority (12) of all the members of
the Senate less one (23), constitutes constitutional majority of the Senate for the purpose of a quorum.
Mr. Justice Pablo believes furthermore than even if the twelve did not constitute a quorum, they could
have ordered the arrest of one, at least, of the absent members; if one had been so arrested, there
would be no doubt Quorum then, and Senator Cuenco would have been elected just the same
inasmuch as there would be eleven for Cuenco, one against and one abstained.

NOTE:
Quorum has been defined as that number of person of the body, which legally assembled in their
proper places, will enable the body to transact its lawful business, or, in other words, that number
that makes the lawful body and gives it power to pass a valid act. Unless otherwise validly
provided, it ordinarily refers to one-half plus one of the entire membership of the body. (Agpalo,
2005.)
Although the Supreme Court’s initial findings that there was no quorum originally constituted, the
Supreme Court finds light in the dissenting opinions of the Justices that even if a new quorum were to
be established, Sen. Cuenco would still be elected Senate President because of the 12 Senators
supporting him and only 11 Senators supporting Sen. Avelino.

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: Physical presence during session is required. The attendance of the session
showed that majority of the members were present thereby constituting quorum. The “walk out” done
did not affect such quorum.

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):

FACTS: The petitioners, Senator Jose Avelino, in a quo warranto proceeding, asked the court to declare
him the rightful Senate President and oust the respondent, Mariano Cuenco. In a session of the Senate,
Tanada’s request to deliver a speech in order to formulate charges against then Senate President Avelino
was approved. With the leadership of the Senate President followed by his supporters, they deliberately
tried to delay and prevent Tanada from delivering his speech. The SP with his supporters employed
delaying tactics, the tried to adjourn the session then walked out. Only 12 Senators were left in the hall.
The members of the senate left continued the session and Senator Cuenco was appointed as the Acting
President of the Senate and was recognized the next day by the President of the Philippines.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction of the case.
2. Whether or not Resolutions 67 & 68 was validly approved.

HELD:
1. The Court has no jurisdiction of the case because the subject matter is political in nature and in doing
so, the court will be against the doctrine of separation of powers. To the first question, the answer is in the
negative, in view of the separation of powers, the political nature of the controversy (Alejandrino vs.
Quezon, 46 Phil. 83; Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192; Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1) 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. We refused to take cognizance of the Vera case even if
the rights of the electors of the suspended senators were alleged affected without any immediate remedy.
A fortiori we should abstain in this case because the selection of the presiding officer affect 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.

2. It was held that there is a quorum that 12 being the majority of 23. In fine, all the four justice agree that
the Court being confronted with the practical situation that of the twenty three senators who may
participate in the Senate deliberations in the days immediately after this decision, twelve senators will
support Senator Cuenco and, at most, eleven will side with Senator Avelino, it would be most injudicious
to declare the latter as the rightful President of the Senate, that office being essentially one that depends
exclusively upon the will of the majority of the senators, the rule of the Senate about tenure of the
President of that body being amenable at any time by that majority. And at any session hereafter held with
thirteen or more senators, in order to avoid all controversy arising from the divergence of opinion here
about quorum and for the benefit of all concerned,the said twelve senators who approved the resolutions
herein involved could ratify all their acts and thereby place them beyond the shadow of a doubt.