Avelino v. Cuenco (1949)

 AVELINO vs. CUENCO

No. L-2821

March 4, 1949 | N/A | Political Question, Separation of Powers, Legislative Branch

PETITIONER: JOSE AVELINO

RESPONDENT: MARIANO J. CUENCO

SUMMARY:

Jose Avelino submitted a petition for quo warranto to the Supreme Court after Mariano Cuenco replaced him as Senate President after he abandoned his Chair and left the session hall on February 21, 1949. This petition was denied by the Supreme Court in votation, 6-4.

Senator Tanada had requested for a right to speak to draft charges against the then Senate President Jose Avelino which was approved. He had submitted a written resolution of his charges to the Secretary of the Senate before the session began.  When the Senate had reached quorum, the session still did not start, instead, Avelino requested for the resolution of Tanada and he read it carefully and aloud. It was only after did he open the session and used every tactic to delay and muzzle Tanada’s speech.

In the process, disorderly conduct arose which gave Senator Pablo Angeles David to move for the adjournment of the session which was opposed by Senator Sanidad.  Avelino left the Chair and exited the session hall so the session continued with Senate President Pro-tempore Melecio Arranz wherein Tanada was able to deliver his speech and two resolutions were approved which removed Avelino was ousted as Senate President and designated Senator Mariano Cuenco as acting Senate President. Cuenco took an oath the same day. He was recognized by the president of the Philippines

DOCTRINE: Separation of powers

Each department has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere. (Angara vs. Electoral Commission)

In view of the separation of powers, the political nature of the controversy (Alejandrino vs. Quezon, 46 Phil., 83; Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil., 192; Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil., 1) and the constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own president, which power should not be interfered with, nor taken over, by the judiciary.

FACTS: 

1. During the session on February 21, 1949, Senator Tanada had been granted the right to speak in session to talk about charges he drew up against Senate President Avelino.
2. Senate had reached quorum but the session did not start because Avelino had not yet opened the session. Before opening it, he read the written resolution of Tanada and Senator Sanidad on his charges. When he finally did, he used a lot of dilatory tactics to postpone Tanada’s speech.
3. Disorderly conduct happened so Senator David filed a motion for adjournment but it was opposed by Senator Sanidad.
4. Avelino banged his gavel and immediately left the session hall followed by Senator David, Senator Tirona, Senator Francisco, Senator Torres, Senator Magalona, Senator Clarin.
5. Session continued with Senator Arranz as Senate President Pro-tempore.
6. Resolution 68 (ordering the investigation of charges filed against the Senate President, Jose Avelino) and 67 (declaring vacant the Senate President chair and designating Mariano Cuenco as acting Senate President) were approved by the remaining senators present.
7. Mariano Cuenco took an oath and was recognized by the president of the Philippines.
8. Jose Avelino filed for a petition to declare himself the rightful Senate President and to oust Mariano Cuenco.

ISSUES: 

1. Whether or not the Court have jurisdiction over the subject-matter? NO
2. Whether or not resolution Nos. 68 and 67 validly approved? YES
3. Whether or not should the petition be granted? NO

RATIO:

1.  In view of the separation of powers, the political nature of the controversy (Alejandrino vs. Quezon, 46 Phil., 83; Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil., 192; Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil., 1) and the constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own president, which power should not be interfered with, nor taken over, by the judiciary. Senators have the liberty to select their officers and/or reinstate them. If Avelino wants to be the presiding officer of the Senate, he should take it up there, not the Supreme Court. 
2. Illegal adjournment of the session was done by the Senate President. The motion for adjournment set by Senator David was not voted on so it did not carry.
3. Because there were senators not in attendance, there were only 22 senators during that session. There were ones who left with Avelino but more senators stayed and because the number reached quorum, business could proceed.
4. The Constitution provides: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.)

 HELD:

The Court by a vote of six justices against four resolved to deny the petition.