Case Digest: Vera vs Avelino

Facts of the Case:

The Commission on Elections submitted last May 1946 to the President and the Congress a report regarding the national
elections held in 1946. It stated that by reason of certain specified acts of terrorism and violence in certain provinces,
namely Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Bulacan and Tarlac, the voting in said region did not reflect the accurate feedback of the
local electorate.

During the session on May 25, 1946, a pendatum resolution was approved referring to the report ordering that Jose O.
Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose E. Romero – who had been included among the 16 candidates for senator receiving the
highest number of votes and as proclaimed by the Commissions on Elections – shall not be sworn, nor seated, as
members of the chamber, pending the termination of the protest filed against their election.

Petitioners then immediately instituted an action against their colleagues who instituted the resolution, praying for its
annulment and allowing them to occupy their seats and to exercise their senatorial duties. Respondents assert the
validity of the pendatum resolution.

Issues of the Case:

Whether or Not the Commission on Elections has the jurisdiction to determine whether or not votes cast in the said
provinces are valid.

Whether or Not the administration of oath and the sitting of Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose Romero should be
deferred pending hearing and decision on the protests lodged against their elections.

Held:

The Supreme Court refused to intervene, under the concept of separation of powers, holding that the case was not a
“contest”, and affirmed that it is the inherent right of the legislature to determine who shall be admitted to its
membership. Following the powers assigned by the Constitution, the question raised was political in nature and
therefore not under the juridical review of the courts

The case is therefore dismissed