Scribd
Upload
52 views2 pages

Tanada Vs Cuenca

The Supreme Court ruled that the issue of the composition of the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) is not a political question beyond judicial review. While the Senate has discretion in some matters, the Constitution limits its power in choosing members of the SET. It mandates that three members be from the majority party and three from the second largest party. The Court found that Senators Delgado and Cuenco were not validly nominated according to this constitutional process, so their election to the SET was invalid. The Court has jurisdiction and a duty to determine if the SET composition complies with constitutional requirements.

Uploaded by

Sapphire
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
52 views2 pages

Tanada Vs Cuenca

The Supreme Court ruled that the issue of the composition of the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) is not a political question beyond judicial review. While the Senate has discretion in some matters, the Constitution limits its power in choosing members of the SET. It mandates that three members be from the majority party and three from the second largest party. The Court found that Senators Delgado and Cuenco were not validly nominated according to this constitutional process, so their election to the SET was invalid. The Court has jurisdiction and a duty to determine if the SET composition complies with constitutional requirements.

Uploaded by

Sapphire
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
You are on page 1/ 2

Tañada vs.

Cuenco (1957)
Posted on 2020-11-01
LORENZO M. TAÑADA and DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL, petitioners,
vs.
MARIANO JESUS CUENCO, FRANCISCO A. DELGADO, ALFREDO CRUZ,
CATALINA CAYETANO, MANUEL SERAPIO, PLACIDO REYES, and FERNANDO
HIPOLITO in his capacity as cashier and disbursing officer, respondents.
G.R. No. L-10520 | 103 Phil 1051 | February 28, 1957 | En Banc | Justice Concepcion

Political and International Law | Constitutional Law | Separation of Powers | Political


Question

The term “political question” connotes xxx a question of policy. It refers


to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by
the people in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the xxx branch of the
government.

FACTS:
Pending before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) was an election protest
filed by members of the Citizens Party (CP) who lost to members of the
Nacionalista Party (NP). The Senate was at the time composed of 23
members of the NP and one of the CP — petitioner Sen. Tañada. When the
SET was being organized, Sen. Tañada, in behalf of the CP, nominated
himself alone. Sen. Primicias, a member of the NP, then nominated “not on
behalf of the [NP] but on behalf of the Committee on Rules of the Senate”
Sens. Delgado and respondent Cuenco “to complete the membership of the
Tribunal”. This he claims is the mandate of the Constitution which reads: “xxx
Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom
shall be Justices of the Supreme Court xxx and the remaining six shall be
Members of the [House] who shall be chosen by each House, 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. xxx.” Over the
objection of Sen. Tañada, Sens. Delgado and Cuenco were chosen to sit in
the SET. Sen. Tañada now contests them in Court. Respondents aver, among
others, that the SC has no jurisdiction on the matter as the issue is a political
question and not judicial.

ISSUE:
Is the issue a political question beyond the ambit of judicial inquiry?

RULING:
No. The issue at bar is not a political question for the Senate is not clothed
with “full discretionary authority” in the choice of members of the SET.¹ The
exercise of its power thereon is subject to constitutional limitations. It is clearly
within the legitimate prove of the judicial department to pass upon the validity
the proceedings in connection therewith. We have not only jurisdiction, but
also the duty to consider and determine the principal issue² raised by the
parties herein.

¹ The question is said to be political when it is a matter which is to be


exercised by the people in their primary political capacity. It is judicial when it
is a matter that has been specifically delegated to some other department or
particular officer of the government, with discretionary power to act. In short,
the term “political question” connotes a question of policy; that is, it refers to
“those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the
people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the Legislature or Executive branch of the
Government.” It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not
legality, of a particular measure. (Tañada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil 1051)

² On the issue on whether the election of Sens. Delgado and Cuenco is valid,
the Court ruled in the negative. It was held that the clear intention of the
framers of the Constitution in prescribing the manner for organizing the
Electoral Tribunals is to prevent the majority party from ever controlling the
Electoral Tribunals, and that the structure thereof be founded upon the
equilibrium between the majority and the minority parties with the Justices of
the SC to insure greater political justice in the determination of election
contests. Thus, the party having the largest number of votes in the Senate
may nominate not more than three members thereof to the SET, and the party
having the second largest number of votes in the Senate has the exclusive
right to nominate the other three Senators. The Senate may not elect, as
members of the SET, those who have not been nominated by the political
parties specified in the Constitution; hence, the Committee on Rules for the
Senate has no standing to validly make such nomination. (Ibid.)

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy