Vera v.
Avelino (1946)
Case Digest
Constitutional Law I | Professor Neil Simon S. Silva
Filing Information
Author MENDOZA, Cendrik Anthony S.
Topic(s) Electoral Tribunals
Case Information
Petitioner(s) JOSE O. VERA, ET AL.
Respondent(s) JOSE A. AVELINO, ET AL.
Court Supreme Court
Ponente BENGZON, J
Case Summary
The Commission on Elections submitted last May 1946 to
the President and the Congress of the Philippines a report
regarding the national elections held the previous month. It
stated that by reason of certain specified acts of terrorism
and violence in the province of Pampanga, Nueva Ecija,
Bulacan and Tarlac, the voting in said region did not reflect
the true and free expression of the popular will.
During the session, when the Senate convened on May 25,
1946, a 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,
proclaimed by the Commissions on Elections – shall not be
sworn, nor seated, as members of the chamber, pending
the termination of the of the protest lodged against their
election.
Petitioners thus immediately instituted an action against
the Senate responsible for the resolution, praying for an
order to annul it and compelling respondents to permit
them to occupy their seats and to exercise their senatorial
prerogative. They also allege that only the Electoral Tribunal
had jurisdiction over contests relating to their election,
returns and qualifications. Respondents assert the validity
of the resolution. The Supreme Court ruled against the
Respondent, for the Senate did not file a contest, but
merely inquired into the credentials of the member, and did
not cross the line of the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Electoral Tribunal to judge election protest.
Compiled by UP Diliman Law Eve1 Batch ‘28
📧 uplaweve1batch28@gmail.com
Docket No. G.R. No. L-543.
Date August 31, 1946
Legal Basis
● CONST. (1935), art. X, sec. 4
The Commission on Elections shall submit to the
President and the Congress, following each election, a
report on the manner in which such election was
conducted.
● Aruego, The Framing of the Philippine Constitution, Vol. I,
pp. 267, 269, 270, 271 and 272.
x x x The discussions in the Constitutional Convention
showed that instead of transferring to the Electoral
Commission all the powers of the House or Senate as
"the sole judge of the election, returns, and qualifications
of the members of the National Assembly," it was given
only jurisdiction over "all contests" relating to the
election, etc
x x x, a promise plan was submitted in the form of an
amendment presented by Delegates Francisco Ventura,
Lim, Vinzons, Rafols, Mumar, and others, limiting the
power of the Electoral Commission to the judging of all
cases contesting the elections, returns, and qualifications
of the members of the National Assembly.
x x x and in order to obviate that difficulty, we believe
that the amendment is right in that sense . . . that is, if
we amend the draft so that it should read as follows: "All
cases contesting the election, etc.", so that the judges of
the Electoral Commission will limit themselves only to
cases in which there has been a protest against the
returns.'
xxx
As it was finally adopted by the Convention, the provision
read
1
Vera v. Avelino (1946)
Case Digest
There shall be an Electoral Commission . . . The Electoral
Commission shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
Members of the National Assembly."'

● Laurel on Elections, Second Edition, p. 250; 20 C. J., 58.

"As used in constitutional provisions", election contest

"relates only to statutory contests in which the
contestant seeks not only to oust the intruder, but also
to have himself inducted into the office."

● DOCTRINE

x x x It must be observed that when a member of the

House raises a question as to the qualifications of
another, an "election contest" does not thereby ensue,
because the former does not seek to be substituted for
their latter.

So that, if not all the powers regarding the election,

returns, and qualifications of members was withdrawn
by the Constitution from the Congress; and if, x x x, the
power to defer the oath-taking, until the contest is
adjudged, does not belong to the corresponding Electoral
Tribunal, then it must be held that the House or Senate
still retains such authority, for it has not been
transferred to, nor assumed by, the Electoral Tribunal.

Antecedent Facts
● Pursuant to a constitutional provision (section 4, Article X), the Commission on Elections submitted, last May, to the
President and the Congress of the Philippines, its report on the national elections held the preceding month, and, among
other things, stated that, by reason of certain specified acts of terrorism and violence in the Provinces of Pampanga,
Nueva Ecija, Bulacan and Tarlac, the voting in said region did not reflect the true and free expression of the popular will.

● When the Senate convened on May 25, 1946, it proceeded with the selection of its officers. Thereafter, in the course of the
session, a resolution was approved referring to the report and ordering that, pending the termination of the protest
lodged against their election, the herein petitioners, Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose E. Romero — who had been
included among the sixteen candidates for senator receiving the highest number of votes, proclaimed by the Commission
on Elections — shall not be sworn, nor seated, as members of that chamber.

● Pertinent parts of the resolution — called Pendatun — are these:

○ "WHEREAS protests against the election of Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno, and Jose Romero, have been filed
with the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate of the Philippines on the basis of the findings of the Commission on
Elections above quoted;

"NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Senate of the Philippines in session assembled, as it hereby
resolves, to defer the administration of oath and the sitting of Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno, and Jose
Romero, pending the hearing and decision on the protest lodged against their elections, wherein the
terrorism averred in the report of the Commission on Elections and in the report of the Provost Marshal
Compiled by UP Diliman Law Eve1 Batch ‘28
📧 uplaweve1batch28@gmail.com
2
Vera v. Avelino (1946)
Case Digest
constitutes the found of said protests and will therefore be the subject of investigation and determination."

● Petitioners immediately instituted this action against their colleagues responsible for the resolution. They pray for an
order annulling it, and compelling respondents to permit them to occupy their seats, and to exercise their senatorial
prerogatives. In their pleadings, respondents traverse the jurisdiction of this court, and assert the validity of the Pendatun
Resolution.

Procedural History

NO OTHER COURTS
PASSED UPON THE
ISSUE

Issue(s)
WON the Senate has exceeded its
powers and encroached the powers of
the COMELEC for deferring the
administration of oath and sitting of
the petitioners.
Held/Ratio
No, the Senate has not exceeded its powers and encroached the powers of the
COMELEC for deferring the administration of oath and sitting of the petitioners.
x x x The discussions in the Constitutional Convention showed that instead of
transferring to the Electoral Commission all the powers of the House or Senate as
"the sole judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the
National Assembly," it was given only jurisdiction over "all contests" relating to the
election, etc. (Aruego, The Framing of the Philippine Constitution, Vol. I, p. 271.)

x x x, a promise plan was submitted in the form of an amendment

presented by Delegates Francisco Ventura, Lim, Vinzons, Rafols, Mumar, and
others, limiting the power of the Electoral Commission to the judging of all
cases contesting the elections, returns, and qualifications of the members of
the National Assembly.

x x x in order to obviate that difficulty, we believe that the amendment is

right in that sense . . . that is, if we amend the draft so that it should read as
follows: "All cases contesting the election, etc.", so that the judges of the
Electoral Commission will limit themselves only to cases in which there has
been a protest against the returns.'

xxx

As it was finally adopted by the Convention, the provision read:

There shall be an Electoral Commission . . . The Electoral Commission shall

be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of the Members of the National Assembly."'

The Convention, however, bent on circumscribing the latter's authority to "contests"

relating to the election, etc. altered the draft. The Convention did not intend to give it
all the functions of the Assembly on the subject of election and qualifications of its
members. The distinction is not without a difference. "As used in constitutional
provisions", election contest "relates only to statutory contests in which the
contestant seeks not only to oust the intruder, but also to have himself inducted into

Compiled by UP Diliman Law Eve1 Batch ‘28

📧 uplaweve1batch28@gmail.com
3
Vera v. Avelino (1946)
Case Digest
the office." (Laurel on Elections, Second Edition, p. 250; 20 C. J., 58.)

x x x It must be observed that when a member of the House raises a question as to

the qualifications of another, an "election contest" does not thereby ensue, because
the former does not seek to be substituted for their latter.

So that, if not all the powers regarding the election, returns, and qualifications of
members was withdrawn by the Constitution from the Congress; and if, as admitted
by petitioners themselves at the oral argument, the power to defer the oath-taking,
until the contest is adjudged, does not belong to the corresponding Electoral
Tribunal, then it must be held that the House or Senate still retains such authority,
for it has not been transferred to, nor assumed by, the Electoral Tribunal.

Ruling
Case dismissed. No costs.
Other Notes

Compiled by UP Diliman Law Eve1 Batch ‘28

📧 uplaweve1batch28@gmail.com
4