Avelino v. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-2821, March 4, 1949

Summary: Knowing that Senator Lorenzo Tañada will file a resolution targeted against him, Senate President Jose Avelino and his partisans used dilatory tactics to prevent Senator Tañada from delivering his privilege speech. Before Senator Tañada could be recognized to speak, one of the SP's followers moved for the adjournment of the session. Opposition to it was raised, and a subsequent move to submit the motion to a vote was requested. No voting happened. SP just banged the gavel, declared the session adjourned, and walked out of the session hall. He was followed by 9 senators. 12 remained who decided to proceed with the session. 

•  Senator Tañada delivered his privilege speech, and  Resolution No. 68 was submitted and unanimously approved.

•   Senator Prospero Sanidad introduced Resolution No 67, declaring the the SP position vacant and designating Mariano Jesus Cuenco Acting SP. It was also unanimously approved.

The next day the President of the PH recognized respondent as the acting president of the PH Senate.

Petitioner filed a quo warranto petition asking the Court to declare him the rightful Pres of the PH Senate and oust respondent.

By vote of 6-4, SC denied the petition. Saying the Court has no jurisdiction over the case as the selection of its officers depends on the Senators themselves. And even supposing it has jurisdiction, the resolutions that were passed would still be held valid as (1) there was a quorum and (2) the resolutions were approved unanimously.

----------------------------------------

Facts:

Petitioner arguments:

1.   Petitioner had adjourned the session of the senate, the adjournment having been properly moved and, without objection, favorably acted upon

2.  Petitioner had full power to adjourn the session even without motion under chapter II, Section 8, paragraph (e) of the Rules of the Senate

3.    The ordinary daily session having been adjourned, no other session could be called in the Senate on the same day

4.   The President Pro-tempore had no authority to assume the presidency except in the cases specified in Chapter I, section 4 of the Rule of the Senate, and none of the conditions therein mentioned obtained at the time in question; and

5.     The twelve Senators that convened in the rump session did not constitute a quorum to do business under the Constitution and the rule of the Senate, being less than one-half plus one of the twenty four members of the Senate.

Respondent defense:

1.       Supreme Court has no jurisdiction

2.     No cause of action as there are only nine Senators who had recognized petitioner's claim against twelve Senators or who have made patent their loss of confidence in him by voting in favor of his out ouster; and

3.   The object of the action is to make the SC a mere tool of a minority group of ten Senators to impose petitioner's will over and above that of the twelve other members of the Senate, to entrench petitioner in power.

----------------------------------------

Issue 1 of 2: WON the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter

Held: No. 

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, SC could not take cognizance of the case.

Proper remedy is the Senate Session Hall.

Issue 2 of 2: WON there was a quorum

Held: Yes. 

First, at the beginning of such session there were at least fourteen senators. Second,  in view of the absence from the country of Senator Tomas Confesor,  12 senators constitute a majority of the Senate of 23 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". 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.

----------------------------------

MORAN CJ, dissent

(1) Court has jurisdiction

- legal capacity of Cuenco's group to act as a Senate is being challenged

•   it's not a political question as it involves a constitutional question which cannot be validly decided by either group

•      not resolving it would lead to confusion and chaos 

(2) No quorum

In the Philippines there are twenty-four senators, and therefore, the quorum must be thirteen.

----------------------------------

PERFECTO J. dissent

(1) Court has jurisdiction

The question raised in the petition, although political in nature, are justiciable because they involve the enforcement of legal precepts, such as the provisions of the Constitution and of the rules of the Senate. The power and authority to decided such questions of law form part of the jurisdiction, not only expressly conferred on the Supreme Court, but of which, by express prohibition of the Constitution, it cannot be divested.

(2) There was illegal adjournment

There is no provision in the present rules of the Senate which expressly or impliedly authorizes an adjournment without the consent of the body or one which authorizes the presiding officer to decree motu proprio said adjournment

(3)No quorum

A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner and under such penalties as such House may provide. (Sec. 10, Sub-sec. 2 Article VI.)

"Majority of each House" can mean only majority of the members of each House, and the number of said members cannot be reduced upon any artificial or imaginary basis not authorized by the context of the Constitution itself or by the sound processes of reason.

An audio version of this digest is available at YouTube. Click this link to listen.