Avelino v.

Cuenco
83 SCRA 17

Topic: Quorum in Congress

Facts:
The respondent-senator Tanada requested that his right to speak on the floor on the next
session day to formulate charges against the then Senate President, petitioner herein, be
reserved.

On that aforementioned session date1, the petitioner finally called the session to be
opened. Before and after long-established practiced of roll call and reading of minute,
both of which was dispensed with due to the objection of the other senators, the
respondent-senator Tanada repeatedly stood up to claim his right to deliver his speech but
the petitioner kept ignoring him. Hence, a series of commotions ensued. And then
suddenly, the petitioner banged the gavel and abandoned the Chair and hurriedly walked
out of the session hall followed by 6 other senators; then subsequently, 2 more senators
left the session hall. Whereupon, the Senate President Tempore, urged by those senators
who did not left the session hall and were present to continue the session. Unanimously
suggested, he thereupon took the Chair. Then ensued the speech of Senator Tanada which
led the passage of 2 resolutions, one of which declaring the position of the President of
the Senate, and the other one as designating the other respondent-senator Cuenco as
acting President of the Senate. The said resolutions were unanimously approved; thus, he
took the oath. Also, the President of the Philippines recognized Senator Cuenco as the
new President of the Senate. Hence, the petitioner brought the case before the Surpreme
Court questioning the presence of quorum during that particular session when the two
resolutions were passed.

Issue:
Whether or not there was a quorum when the contended resolution was passed.

Held:
Yes. When the Constitution declares that a majority of “each house” shall constitute
quorum, “the House” does not mean “all the members.” Even a majority of all the
members constitute “the House”.

There is s difference between a majority of “all the members of the House” and a
majority of “the House”, the latter requiring less than the first. Therefore an absolute
majority(12) of all the members of the Senate less one(23)2 constitutes constitutional
majority of the Senate for the purpose of quorum.

1
On that aforementioned sessions date, all the Senators were present, except for two senators, one of which was confined in a hospital,
while the other was in the United States.
2
It is therein stated 23 instead of 24 because one of the Senators was physically outside the Philippines; thus, it was impossible to
compel him to attend the senate sessions. Furthermore, notwithstanding the hospitalization of other senator who was absent during that
particular session, the former could still be compelled(arrested) to join the session thus including him in the count, that is, 23. And
lastly, even if it is to be said that the former cannot attend the said session, the majority of 22 is still 12; hence, they are enough to
constitute a quorum and passed resolutions. (this is how I understood it. :D )