[G.R. No.

L-10520 | February 28, 1957]

TAADA vs. C!NC"
FACT#$ Senate chose respondents Senators Mariano J. Cuenco and Francisco A. Delgado as
members of the same Electoral Tribunal. Respondents allege that !a" this Court is #ithout po#er$
authorit% of &urisdiction to direct or control the action of the Senate in choosing the members of
the Electoral Tribunal' and !b" that the petition states no cause of action$ because (petitioner
Ta)ada has e*hausted his right to nominate after he nominated himself and refused to nominate
t#o !+" more Senators.(
RL%NG$ ,e cannot agree #ith the conclusion dra#n b% respondents from the foregoing facts.
To begin #ith$ unli-e the cases of Ale&andrino vs. .ue/on !01 2hil.$ 34" and 5era vs. Avelino !66
2hil.$ 78+"9relied upon b% the respondents this is not an action against the Senate$ and it does not
see- to compel the latter$ either directl% or indirectl%$ to allo# the petitioners to perform their
duties as members of said :ouse. Although the Constitution provides that the Senate shall
choose si* !1" Senators to be members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal$ the latter is part neither
of Congress nor of the Senate.
Secondl%$ although the Senate has$ under the Constitution$ the e*clusive po#er to choose the
Senators #ho shall form part of the Senate Electoral Tribunal$ the fundamental la# has
prescribed the manner in #hich the authorit% shall be e*ercised. As the author of a ver%
enlightening stud% on &udicial self9limitation has aptl% put it
"The courts are called upon to say, on the one hand, by whom certain powers shall be
exercised, and on the other hand, to determine whether the powers possessed have been
validly exercised. In performing the latter function, they do not encroach upon the powers of a
coordinate branch of the, government, since the determination of the validity of an act is not
the same, thing as the performance of the act. In the one case we are seeking to ascertain
upon whom devolves the duty of the particular service. In the other case we are merely
seeking to determine whether the Constitution has been violated by anything done or
attented by either an executive official or the legislative."
Again$ under the Constitution$ (the legislative po#er( is vested e*clusivel% in the Congress of the
2hilippines. ;et$ this does not detract from the po#er of the courts to pass upon the
constitutionalit% of acts of Congress. And$ since &udicial po#er includes the authorit% to in<uire
into the legalit% of statutes enacted b% the t#o :ouses of Congress$ and approved b% the
E*ecutive$ there can be no reason #h% the validit% of an act of one of said :ouses$ li-e that of
an% other branch of the =overnment$ ma% not be determined in the proper actions.
>n fact$ #henever the conflicting claims of the parties to a litigation cannot properl% be settled
#ithout in<uiring into the validit% of an act of Congress or of either :ouse thereof$ the courts have$
not onl% &urisdiction to pass upon said issue$ but$ also$ the dut% to do so$ #hich cannot be evaded
#ithout violating the fundamental la# and paving the #a% to its eventual destruction.
As alread% adverted to$ the ob&ection to our &urisdiction hinges on the <uestion #hether the issue
before us is political or not.
>n short$ the term (political <uestion( connotes$ in legal parlance$ #hat it means in ordinar%
parlance$ namel%$ a <uestion of polic%. >n other #ords$ in the language of Corpus Juris Secundum
!supra"$ it refers to (those <uestions #hich$ under the Constitution$ are to be decided b% the
people in their sovereign capacit%$ or in regard to #hich full discretionar% authorit% has been
delegated to the ?egislature or e*ecutive branch of the =overnment.( >t is concerned #ith issues
dependent upon the #isdom$ not legalit%$ of a particular measure.
Such is not the nature of the <uestion for determination in the present case. :ere$ #e are called
upon to decide #hether the election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado$ b% the Senate$ as
members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal$ upon nomination b% Senator 2rimicias9a member and
spo-esman of the part% having the largest number of votes in the Senate9on behalf of its
Committee on Rules$ contravenes the constitutional mandate that said members of the Senate
Electoral Tribunal shall be chosen (upon nomination .. of the part% having the second largest
number of votes( in the Senate$ and hence$ is null and void. This is not a political <uestion. The
Senate is not clothed #ith (full discretionar% authorit%( in the choice of members of the Senate
Electoral Tribunal. The e*ercise of its po#er thereon is sub&ect to constitutional limitations #hich
are claimed to be mandator% in nature. >t is clearl% #ithin the legitimate prove of the &udicial
department to pass upon the validit% the proceedings in connection there#ith.
,hether an election of public officers has been in accordance #ith la# is for the &udiciar%.
Moreover$ #here the legislative department has b% statute prescribed election procedure in a
given situation$ the &udiciar% ma% determine #hether a particular election has been in conformit%
#ith such statute$ and$ particularl%$ #hether such statute has been applied in a #a% to den% or
transgress on the constitutional or statutor% rights ..( !71 C.J.S.$ 048' emphasis supplied.".
>t is$ therefore$ our opinion that #e have$ not onl% &urisdiction$ but$ also$ the dut%$ to consider and
determine the principal issue raised b% the parties herein.
>s the election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado$ b% the Senate$ as members of the Electoral
Tribunal$ valid and la#ful@
Section 77 of Article 5> of the 784A Constitution$ reads
"The Senate and the ouse of !epresentatives shall each have an "lectoral Tribunal which
shall be the sole #udge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and $ualifications of
their respective %embers. "ach "lectoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine %embers, three
of whom shall be &ustices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief &ustice, and
the remaining six shall be %embers of the Senate or of the ouse of !epresentatives, as the
case may be, who shall be chosen by each ouse, three upon nomination of the party having
the largest number of votes and three of the party having the second largest number of votes
therein. The Senior &ustice in each "lectoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman."
2etitioners maintain that said nomination and election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado9#ho
belong to the Bacionalista 2art%9as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal$ are null and void
and have been made #ithout po#er or color of authorit%$ for$ after the nomination b% said part%$
and the election b% the Senate$ of Senators ?aurel$ ?ope/ and 2rimicias$ as members of said
Tribunal$ the other Senators$ #ho shall be members thereof$ must necessaril% be nominated b%
the part% having the second largest number of votes in the Senate$ and such part% is$ admittedl%$
the Citi/ens 2art%$ to #hich Senator Ta)ada belongs and #hich he represents.
Respondents allege$ ho#ever$ that the constitutional mandate to the effect that (each Electoral
Tribunal shall be compose of nine !8" members$( si* !1" of #hom (shall be members of the
Senate or of the :ouse of Representatives$ as the case ma% be($ is mandator%' that #hen9after
the nomination of three !4" Senators b% the ma&orit% part%$ and their election b% the Senate$ as
members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal9Senator Ta)ada nominated himself onl%$ on behalf of
the minorit% part%$ he thereb% (#aived his right to no t#o more Senators'( that$ #hen Senator
2rimicias nominated Senators Cuenco and Delgado$ and these respondents #ere chosen b% the
Senate$ as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal$ Said Senator 2rimicias and the Senate
merel% complied #ith the aforementioned provision of the fundamental la#$ relative to the number
of members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal' and$ that$ accordingl%$ Senators Cuenco and
Delgado are de &ure members of said bod%$ and the appointment of their co9respondents$ Alfredo
Cru/$ Catalina Ca%etano$ Manuel Serapio and 2lacido Re%es is valid and la#ful.
,hat has been said above$ relative to the conditions antecedent to$ and concomitant #ith$ the
adoption of section 77 of Article 5> of the Constitution$ reveals clearl% that its framers intended to
prevent the ma&orit% part% from controlling the Electoral Tribunals$ and that the structure thereof is
founded upon the e<uilibrium bet#een the ma&orit% and the minorit% parties therein$ #ith the
Justices of the Supreme Court$ #ho are members of said Tribunals$ holding the resulting balance
of po#er. The procedure prescribed in said provision for the selection of members of the Electoral
Tribunals is vital to the role the% are called upon to pla%. it constitutes the essence of said
Tribunals. :ence$ compliance #ith said procedure is mandator%$ and acts performed in violation
thereof are null and void.
>t is true that the application of the foregoing criterion #ould limit the membership of the Senate
Electoral Tribunal$ in the case at bar$ to seven !6"$ instead of nine !8"$ members' but$ it is
conceded that the present composition of the Senate #as not foreseen b% the framers of our
Constitution.
Furthermore$ the spirit of the la# prevails over its letter$ and the solution herein adopted
maintains the spirit of the Constitution$ for partisan considerations can not be decisive in a
tribunal consisting of three !4" Justices of the Supreme Court$ three !4" members nominated b%
the ma&orit% part% and either one !7" or t#o !+" members nominated b% the part% having the
second largest number of votes in the :ouse concerned.
Cpon the other hand$ #hat #ould be the result of respondentsD contention if upheld@ E#ing to the
fact that the Citi/ens 2art% has onl% one member in the Cpper :ouse$ Senator Ta)ada felt he
should nominate$ for the Senate Electoral Tribunal$ onl% said member of the Citi/ens 2art%. The
same is$ thus$ numericall% handicapped$ vis9a9vis the ma&orit% part%$ in said Tribunal. Ebviousl%$
Senator Ta)ada did not nominate other t#o Senators$ because$ other#ise$ he #ould #orsen the
alread% disadvantageous position$ therein$ of the Citi/ens 2art%.
>ndeed$ b% the aforementioned nomination and election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado$ if the
same #ere sanctioned$ the Bacionalista 2art% #ould have five !A" members in the Senate
Electoral Tribunal$ as against one !7" member of the Citi/ens 2art% and three members of the
Supreme Court. ,ith the absolute ma&orit% thereb% attained b% the ma&orit% part% in said Tribunal$
the philosoph% underl%ing the same #ould be entirel% upset. The e<uilibrium bet#een the political
parties therein #ould be destro%ed. ,hat is #orst$ the decisive moderating role of the Justices of
the Supreme Court #ould be #iped out$ and$ in lieu thereof$ the door #ould be thro#n #ide open
for the predominance of political considerations in the determination of election protests pending
before said Tribunal$ #hich is precisel% #hat the fathers of our Constitution earnestl% strove to
forestall.
>n vie# of the foregoing$ #e hold that the Senate ma% not elect$ as members of the Senate
Electoral Tribunal$ those Senators #ho have not been nominated b% the political parties specified
in the Constitution' that the part% having the largest number of votes in the Senate ma% nominate
not more than three !4" members thereof to said Electoral Tribunal' that the part% having the
second largest number of votes in the Senate has the e*clusive right to nominate the other three
!4" Senators #ho shall sit as members in the Electoral Tribunal' that neither these three !4"
Senators$ nor an% of them$ ma% be nominated b% a person or part% other than the one having the
second largest number of votes in the Senate or its representative therein' that the Committee on
Rules for the Senate has no standing to validl% ma-e such nomination and that the nomination of
Senators Cuenco and Delgado b% Senator 2rimicias$ and the election of said respondents b% the
Senate$ as members of said Tribunal$ are null and void ab initio.
As regards respondents Alfredo Cru/$ Catalina Ca%etano$ Manuel Serapio and 2lacido Re%es$
#e are not prepared to hold$ ho#ever$ that their appointments #ere null and void. Although
recommended b% Senators Cuenco and Delgado$ #ho are not la#ful members of the Senate
Electoral Tribunal$ the% #ere appointed b% its Chairman$ presumabl%$ #ith the consent of the
ma&orit% of the de &ure members of said bod% 70 or$ pursuant to the Rules thereof. At an% rate$ as
held in Suanes vs. Chief Accountant !supra"$ the election of its personnel is an internal matter
falling #ithin the &urisdiction and control of said bod%$ and there is ever% reason to believe that it
#ill$ hereafter ta-e appropriate measures$ in relation to the four !0" respondents abovementioned$
conformabl% #ith the spirit of the Constitution and of$ the decision in the case at bar.
,herefore$ &udgment is hereb% rendered declaring that$ respondents Senators Mariano Jesus
Cuenco and Francisco A. Delgado have not been dul% elected as Members of the Senate
Electoral Tribunal$ that the% are not entitled to act as such and that the% should be$ as the% are
hereb%$ en&oined from e*ercising the po#ers and duties of Members of said Electoral Tribunal
and from acting in such capacit% in connection #ith Senate Electoral Case Bo. 0 thereof. ,ith the
<ualification stated above$ the petition is dismissed$ as regards respondents Alfredo Cru/$
Catalina Ca%etano$ Manuel Serapio and 2lacido Re%es.