Jose AVELINO v. Mariano CUENCO
The next day, the President of the
FACTS: This case is q quo warranto proceeding where petitioner JOSE
AVELINO asks the Court to declare him as the rightful President of the
Philippine Senate, and to oust respondent MARIANO CUENCO.
In the Senate session that took place on Feb. 18, 1949, Sen. Lorenzo M.
Tañada requested that his right to speak on the next session day, Feb.
21, 1949, be reserved. The purpose was to formulate charges against
the then Senate President Jose AVELINO. His request was approved.
On Feb. 21, 1949, hours before the opening of the session, Senators
Tañada and Sanidad filed with the Secretary of the Senate a resolution
enumerating charges against then Senate President AVELINO and
ordering the investigation thereof.
At 10 AM (appointed time) of the same day, a sufficient number of to
constitute a quorum were already at the session hall. However, Senate
President AVELINO delayed his appearance at the session hall until
about 11:35 AM, and once he ascended the rostrum, he did not
immediately open the session. First, AVELINO requested a copy of the
Resolution submitted by Tañada and Sanidad. Then, in the presence of
the public, he read it slowly and carefully. Afterwards, he called and
conferred with his colleagues, Senators Francisco and Tirona.
Before 12 NN, AVELINO finally called the meeting to order after the
insistent requests of other senators. All the senators were present,
EXCEPT for Senator Sotto who was confined in a hospital, and Senator
Confesor who was in the United States.
From here, a series of delaying tactics were done to prevent Senator
Tañada from delivering his privilege speech. Tañada repeatedly stood
up to claim his right to deliver his one-hour privilege speech but
AVELINO, who was then presiding, continuously ignored Tañada.
When Tañada insisted on being recognized by the chair, AVELINO
announced that he would order the arrest of any senator who would
speak without being recognized by the chair.
Subsequently, some disorderly conduct broke out in the Senate gallery,
as if by pre-arrangement. Then, Sen. David, after being recognized by
AVELINO, moved for the adjournment of the session, obviously still in
pursuit of the plan to muzzle Sen. Tañada.
Sen. Sanidad opposed to the adjournment of the session, seconded by
respondent CUENCO, who moved that the motion of adjournment be
submitted to a vote. Another commotion ensued. Suddenly, AVELINO
banged the gavel, and, abandoning the chair, he walked out of the
session hall, followed by Senators David, Tirona, Francisco, Torres,
Magalona, and Clarin. The rest of the Senators remained.
The present senators thereafter urged Sen. Arranz (Senate President
Pro-tempore) to take the chair and proceed with the session.
Sen. Cabili stood up and asked that it be recorded that the deliberate
abandonment of the chair by AVELINO made incumbent that SP Pro-
tempore Arranz and the remaining senators continue with the session
in order not to paralyze the functions of the Senate.
Senate President Pro-tempore Arranz suggested that respondent
Mariano CUENCO be designated to take over the session, which was
carried out unanimously. CUENCO then took the chair. Tañada was able
to deliver his privilege speech.
Sen. Sanidad then introduced Resolution no. 67, entitled “Resolution
declaring vacant the position of the President of the Senate and
designating the Hon. Mariano Jesus Cuenco Acting President of the
Senate”. After being put to a vote, Resolution was unanimously
approved.
Senator CUENCO took the oath.
Philippines recognized CUENCO as Acting President of the Philippine
Senate.
Now, in this quo warranto proceeding, AVELINO asks the Court to
declare him as the rightful President of the Philippine Senate, and to
oust CUENCO.
ISSUE: 1. WON the session of the so-called rump senate was a
continuation of the session validly assembled with 22 senators in
the morning of Feb, 21, 1949. (YES)
2. WON there was a quorum in that session. (YES)
RULING: There is unanimity in the view that the session under Senator
Arranz was a continuation of the morning session. A minority of ten
senators may not, by leaving the Hall, prevent the other 12 senators
from passing a resolution that met with their unanimous endorsement.
The answer might be different had the resolution been approved only
by ten or less.
Justices Paras, Feria, Pablo, and Bengzon say that there was a majority
required by the Constitution for the transaction of the business of the
Senate. First, because the minute say so. Second, because at the
beginning of such session there were at least 14 senators. Third,
because 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". 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.
Justice Pablo believes furthermore than even if the 12 did not
constitute a quorum, they could have ordered the arrest of one, at
least, of the absent members; if one had been so arrested, there would
be no doubt that there was a quorum then, and Senator Cuenco would
have been elected just the same inasmuch as there would be 11 for
Cuenco, one against and one abstained.
it would be most injudicious to declare AVELINO as the rightful
President of the Senate, because of the 23 senators who may
participate in the Senate deliberations in the days immediately after
this decision, 12 senators will support Senator CUENCO and, at most,
11 will side with Senator AVELINO.
At any session hereafter held with 13 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 12 senators
who approved the resolutions herein involved could ratify all their acts
and thereby place them beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Petition was dismissed.