Sunteți pe pagina 1din 5

University of the Philippines College of Law

AEFI - D2023
(1935 Constitution)

Case Name Vera V. Avelino

Docket Number | Date No. L-543 | August 31, 1946

Ponente Bengzon, J.

Petitioner/s Jose O. Vera, et al.

Respondent/s Jose A. Avelino, et al.

Case Summary The COMELEC submitted its report on the national elections and
stated that, by reason of certain specified acts of terrorism and
violence in the provinces of Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Bulacan and
Tarlac, the voting in said region did not reflect the true and free
expression of the popular will. Consequently, the Pedantun Resolution
was adopted by the Senate to prevent herein petitioners from being
sworn and seated as its members. The petitioners assailed the validity
of said Resolution and prayed for a writ of prohibition to compel
respondents to permit them to occupy their seats and to exercise their
senatorial prerogatives. Invoking the principle of separation of powers
and congressional immunity, among others, the Court dismissed the
petition.

Doctrine Principle of Separation of Powers (Alejandrino, Severino, and Abueva


precedents)

Section 15, Article VI of the 1935 Constitution


“The Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall in
all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged
from arrest during their attendance at the session of the Congress,
and in going to and retuning from the same; and for any speech or
debate therein, they shall not be question in any other place.”

Section 12, Commonwealth Act No. 725


“The candidates for Member of the House of Representatives and
those for Senators who have been proclaimed elected by the
respective Board of Canvassers and the Commission on Elections shall
assume office and shall hold regular session for the year nineteen
hundred and forty0sic on may twnty0five, nineteen hundred and
forty-six.”
RELEVANT FACTS

● The Commission on Elections (COMELEC), pursuant to Section 11 of Commonwealth Act No. 725,
made the canvass of the votes cast for senators in the election held on April 23, 1946, and on May
23, 1946, proclaimed the winners of the said election.
● Twelve senators were elected into Congress, creating a Senate composed of 13 Liberals and 11
Nacionalistas.
● May 25, 1946 – the Senate convened to inaugurate the regular legislative session of that year.
They began the session by reading the proclamation made by the COMELEC (there being no
question as to its legality and regularity), whereupon they proceeded to elect Avelino as the
Senate President, recognizing 22/24 votes (2 were absent).
● After respondent Senator Avelino assumed his office as Senate President, it was moved that he
receive the collective oath of office of the newly elected senators, and at this juncture, Senator
Salipada Pendanun proposed the adoption of the Pendatun Resolution:
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Senate of the Philippines, in session
assembled, as it hereby resolves, to defer the administration of oath and the
sitting of JOSE O. VERA, RAMON DIOKNO, AND JOSE ROMERO, pending the
hearing and decision on the protests lodged against their elections, wherein the
terrorism averred in the report of the Commission on Elections and in the report
of the Provost Marshal constitute the ground of said protests and will therefore
be the subject of investigation and determination.
● It was unanimously agreed upon to postpone further debate on the adoption of the resolution.
After the minority senators left, 12 liberals stayed behind and voted to implement the Pendatun
Resolution.
● May 27, 1946 - The petitioners filed a case with the SC, praying for an order annulling the
Pendatun Resolution and compelling respondents to permit them to occupy their seats and to
exercise their senatorial prerogatives. They claimed that their removal from the Senate was part
of the respondents’ scheme to prevent the Bell Trade Act from being outvoted by the minority.
● June 1, 1946 - SC temporarily voted to dissolve injunction until they could meet en banc.
● June 3, 1946 - Dissolution of the preliminary injunction
● July 4, 1946 - The Bell Trade Act was executed

RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue/s Ratio

W/N the Court has No.


jurisdiction over the case
PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

Citing the Alejandrino case, the Court ruled:

“ . . . we could not order one branch of the Legislature to reinstate a


member thereof. To do so would be to establish judicial predominance
and to upset the classic pattern of checks and balances wisely woven
into our institutional setup.”
CONGRESSIONAL IMMUNITY

The Constitution provides (Article VI, Section 15) that “for any speech
or debate” in Congress, Senators and congressmen “shall not be
question in any other place.” This privilege has been interpreted to
include giving of a vote and the presentation of a resolution.

“Respondents are, by this proceeding, called to account for their votes


in approving the Pendatun Resolution. Having sworn to uphold the
Constitution, we must enforce the constitutional directive. We must not
question nor permit respondents to be questioned here in connection
with their votes.”

W/N a writ of prohibition No.


can be issued
Prohibition refers only to proceedings of any tribunal, corporation,
board, or person, exercising functions judicial or ministerial. As the
respondents do not exercise such kind of functions, theirs being
legislative, the dispute falls beyond the scope of the sought remedy.

W/N the Senate usurped the No.


powers of the Electoral
Tribunal Not all the powers regarding the election, returns, and qualifications of
members was transferred from the Congress to the Electoral Tribunal.
The Congress retains the power to defer the oath-taking until electoral
contests are adjudged. This stemmed from the former privilege of
either House to be judge of election, returns, and qualifications of the
members thereof and the legislature’s inherent power of self-
preservation. The Pedantun Resolution recognized, and did not impair,
the jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal to decide the contest.

W/N the respondents No.


violated the constitutional
rights of the petitioners as “The Senate, as a branch of the legislative department, had the
elected Senators constitutional power to adopt the rules for its proceedings…and by
legislative practice it is conceded the power to promulgate such orders
as may be necessary to maintain its prestige and preserve its dignity.”
The Resolution was “prompted by the dictates of ordinary caution, or
of public policy.”

Any right spelled out of Section 12 of Commonwealth Act No. 725 must
logically be limited to those candidates whose proclamation is clear,
unconditional, and unclouded. Such standard was not met by the
petitioners.

RULING
Case dismissed. No costs.
SEPARATE OPINIONS
Hilado, J., concurring:

Definitions of a political right:


 Anderson: “a right exercisable in the administration of government”
 Bouvier: “Political rights consist in the power to participate, directly or indirectly, in the
establishment or management of the government.”

It is clear that the rights sought to be exercised or protected by petitioner through this proceeding are
political rights and the questions raised are political questions, and it is well-settled doctrine that the
equitable remedy of injunction is not available for such a purpose.

Perfecto, J., dissenting:

 “The principle of separation of powers cannot be invoked to deny the Supreme Court
jurisdiction in this case, because to decide the question of validity or nullity of the Pendatun
Resolution, of whether the petitioners are illegally deprived of their constitutional rights and
privileges as senators of the Philippines, of whether respondents must or must not be enjoined
by injunction or prohibition from illegally and unconstitutionally trampling upon the constitutional
and legal rights of petitioners is a function Judicial in nature and, not having been assigned by the
Constitution to other department of government, is logically within the province of courts of
justice, including the Supreme Court.”
 If the institution of a contest is enough to prevent elected officials to take their oaths and seats,
then evil-disposed people would prolong the case for as long as possible to shorten their
opponents’ terms for as much as possible. (e.g. to implement the Bell Trade Act)
 The Senators who voted for the Pendatun Resolution comprised of only 12 senators. A quorum
(13 for the Senate) is required to enact any such resolutions.
 The Senate lacks the power of suspension for it is vested in the Electoral Tribunal. The respondents
usurped the power of the Electoral Tribunal.
“…respondents encroached upon, invaded, and usurped the ancillary power to suspend
petitioners in relation to the power to judge electoral contests concerning senators, a power
which the Constitution specifically assigns to the Senate Electoral Tribunal.”

NOTES
Alejandrino doctrine:
● Alejandrino vs. Quezon: Senator Alejandrino physically assaults Senator Quezon, causing his
colleagues to call for his suspension. In this case, the Court said:

It is here only necessary to recall that under our system of government, each of the three
departments is distinct and not directly subject to the control of another department. The
power to control is the power to abrogate and the power to abrogate is the power to
usurp. Mandamus will not lie against the legislative body, its members, or its officer, to
compel the performance of duties purely legislative in their character which therefore
pertain to their legislative functions and over which they have exclusive control. The
courts cannot dictate action in this respect without a gross usurpation of power. So it has
been held that where a member has been expelled by the legislative body, the courts
have no power, irrespective of whether the expulsion was right or wrong, to issue a
mandate to compel his reinstatement.

S-ar putea să vă placă și