Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
AEFI - D2023
(1935 Constitution)
Ponente Bengzon, J.
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.
● 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
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.
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:
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.
“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.