[G.R. No. L-2821.

March 4, 1949]
JOSE AVELINO, Petitioner, v. MARIANO J. CUENCO, Respondent.

Facts:
Senators Tañada and Sanidad filed a resolution (Resolution No. 68) enumerating charges against
the petitioner Senate President Avelino and ordering an investigation thereof.

During the session day when Sen. Tañada was supposed to have his privilege speech where all
members of the Senate were present, except two senators; Senator Sotto and Senator Confesor.
So, there was a quorum with 22 in attendance out of the 24 members of the Senate. When the
session was called to order, Sen. Tañada repeatedly stood up to claim his right to deliver his one-
hour speech but Sen. Pres. Avelino kept on ignoring him, and announced that he would order the
arrest of anyone who would speak without being previously recognized but tolerated the actions
of his follower, Senator Tirona who was continuously shouting at Senator Sanidad "Out of
order!" everytime the latter would ask for recognition.

A commotion broke out. A move for adjournment was opposed. Suddenly, Sen. Pres. Avelino
banged his gavel and walked out of the session hall followed by his followers (leaving only 12
senators in the hall).

Thereafter, senators who remained went on with the session (socalled “rump session”), and voted
to declare vacant the position of the Senate President and designated respondent Sen. Cuenco as
the Acting Senate President.

In this petition, Sen. Avelino prays for the Court to declare him the rightful Senate President and
to oust respondent Sen. Cuenco.

Issues:
1. Is the rump session a continuation of the morning session?
2. Supposing the rump session was not a continuation of the morning session, was there a
quorum when Sen. Avelino was ousted and Sen. Cuenca was elected as the Senate
President?
Ruling:
1. Yes. A minority of 10 senators may not, by leaving the Hall, prevent the other 12
senators from passing a resolution that met with their unanimous endorsement.

2. Yes. In view of Sen. Confesor’s absence from the country, for all practical
considerations, he may not participate in the Senate deliberations. Therefore, an absolute
majority of all the members of the Senate less one (23), constitutes constitutional
majority of the Senate for the purpose of a quorum; that is, 12 senators in this case
constitute a quorum. 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 is a quorum] then, and Sen. Cuenco would have been elected just
the same inasmuch as, at most, only 11 will side with Sen. Avelino. It would be most
injudicious to declare the latter as the rightful President of the Senate.
Principle:
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." (Missouri Pac. v. Kansas, 63 Law ed. [U. S. ], p. 239).
There is a difference between a majority of "all the members of the House" and a
majority of "the House", the latter requiring less number than the first (Avelino v.
Cuenco, 83 Phil 17). 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. Mr. Justice Pablo believes furthermore that even if the twelve 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 Quorum then, and Senator Cuenco
would have been elected just the same inasmuch as there would be eleven for Cuenco,
one against and one abstained.

Majority of “all Members” means absolute majority. “A majority” of each House

means simple majority, requiring a less number. Art Vi, Sec. 16 (2)