ROWARD TUBOG JD -1
USJR-LAW SY: 2020-2021
SUBJECT: Constitutional Law 1
TOPIC: Sec. 16(6), Art. VI. Quorum
TITLE: Avelino v. Cuenco
CITATION: G.R. No. L-2821, 4 March 1949
FACTS:
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. Senator Cabili request to make 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.
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. 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. 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.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Resolutions 67 and 68 was validly approved.
2. Whether or not the petitioner be granted to declare him the
rightful President of the Philippines Senate and oust respondent.
RULING:
1. Yes.
It was validly constituted, supposing that the Court has jurisdiction.
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.
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.
2. The Court adopts a hands-off policy on this matter.
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.
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.
