Scribd
Upload
80 views2 pages

Tañada vs. Cuenco G.R. No. L 10520 February 28 1957

This case concerns the composition of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, which is tasked with resolving election protests. The Constitution specifies that the Tribunal be composed of Senators nominated by the party with the largest number of votes and the party with the second largest number of votes, along with Justices of the Supreme Court. However, in this case the Tribunal was composed of five members from the majority Nacionalista Party and only one from the minority Citizens Party. The Court ruled that the composition of the Tribunal is not a political question and that the Senate does not have full discretion in its selection, as the Constitution imposes limitations to ensure balance between the political parties. The Court found the Tribunal's composition in this case to violate the Constitution.

Uploaded by

NefreterieGelitoAng
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
80 views2 pages

Tañada vs. Cuenco G.R. No. L 10520 February 28 1957

This case concerns the composition of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, which is tasked with resolving election protests. The Constitution specifies that the Tribunal be composed of Senators nominated by the party with the largest number of votes and the party with the second largest number of votes, along with Justices of the Supreme Court. However, in this case the Tribunal was composed of five members from the majority Nacionalista Party and only one from the minority Citizens Party. The Court ruled that the composition of the Tribunal is not a political question and that the Senate does not have full discretion in its selection, as the Constitution imposes limitations to ensure balance between the political parties. The Court found the Tribunal's composition in this case to violate the Constitution.

Uploaded by

NefreterieGelitoAng
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Tañada vs. Cuenco (G.R. No.

L-10520, February 28, 1957)

FACTS:
Petitioner Lorenzo M. Tañada is a member of the Senate of the Philippines, and President of the Citizens
Party.

Diosdado Macapagal, a member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines, was one of the
official candidates of the Liberal Party for the Senate, at the general elections held in November, 1955,
in which Pacita Madrigal Warns, Lorenzo Sumulong, Quintin Paredes, Francisco Rodrigo, Pedro Sabido,
Claro M. Recto, Domocao Alonto and Decoroso Rosales, were proclaimed elected.

Tanada has been chosen as member of Senate Electoral Tribunal together with Mariano J. Cuenco and
Francisco A. Delgado, and the appointments of respondents, Cruz, Cayetano, Serapio and Reyes, as
technical assistants and private secretaries.

Soon, thereafter, Senator Lorenzo M. Tañada and Congressman Diosdado Macapagal instituted this
alleging that in choosing these respondents, as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal violates the
selection of which shall be composed as follows:

a) not more than three (3) senators chosen by the Senate upon nomination of the party having the
largest number of votes in the Senate

b) more than three (3) Senators upon nomination of the party having the second largest number
of votes therein

c) together with three (3) Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice,

However, the scenario at his case is an Electoral Tribunal packed with five members belonging to the
Nacionalista Party, which is the rival party of the Liberal Party, to which the petitioner Diosdado
Macapagal and his co-protestants in Electoral Case No. 4 belong.

ISSUE:
Whether the manner of choosing Members of the Senate Election Tribunal is a political question

RULING:
The term "political question" connotes, in legal parlance, what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a
question of policy. It refers to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the
people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated
to the Legislature or executive branch of the Government.

Although the Senate has, under the Constitution, the exclusive power to choose the Senators who shall
form part of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, the fundamental law has prescribed the manner in which the
authority shall be exercised.

Here, we are called upon to decide whether the election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado, by the
Senate, as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, upon nomination by Senator Primicias—a member
and spokesman of the party having the largest number of votes in the Senate—on behalf of its
Committee on Rules, contravenes the constitutional mandate that said members of the Senate Electoral
Tribunal shall be chosen "upon nomination * * * of the party having the second largest number of
votes" in the Senate, and hence, is null and void.

This is not a political question. The Senate is not clothed with "full discretionary authority" in the
choice of members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal.

The exercise of its power thereon is subject to constitutional limitations which are claimed to be
mandatory in nature. It is clearly within the legitimate province of the judicial department to pass
upon the validity of the proceedings in connection therewith.

Indeed, by the aforementioned nomination and election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado, if the same
were sanctioned, the Nacionalista Party would have five (5) members in the Senate Electoral Tribunal, as
against one (1) member of the Citizens Party and three members of the Supreme Court.

With the absolute majority thereby attained by the majority party in said Tribunal, the equilibrium
between the political parties therein would be destroyed. What is worst, the decisive moderating role
of the Justices of the Supreme Court would be wiped out, and, in lieu thereof, the door would be thrown
wide open for the predominance of political considerations in the determination of election protests
pending before said Tribunal, which is precisely what the fathers of our Constitution earnestly strove to
forestall.

You might also like