TAÑADA & MACAPAGAL VS. CUENCO ET.AL. G.R. No. L-10520 February 28, 1957
FACTS:
On Feb. 22, 1956, the Senate on behalf of the Nacionalista Party elected respondents Cuenco & Delgado as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal Tribunal upon the nomination of Senator Primicias, an NP member. The two seats, originally for minority party nominees, were filled with NP members to meet the Constitutional Constitutional mandate under Sec.2 Art. 6, over the objections of lone Citizen Party Senator Tañada. Consequently, Consequently, the Chairman of the Tribunal appointed the rest of the respondents as staff members of Cuenco & Delgado. Petitioner alleges that the nomination by Sen. Primicias on behalf of the Committee on Rules for the Senate, violates Sec. 2, Art. 6 of Philippine Constitution, Constitution, since 3 seats on the ET are reserved for minority senators duly nominated by the minority party representatives. Furthermore, as respondents are about to decide on Electoral Case Case No. 4 of Senate, the case at bar is a violation not only of Tañada's right as Citizens Party member of ET, but respondent Macapagal's right right to an impartial body that will try his election protest. Petitioners pray for a writ of preliminary injunction against respondents (cannot exercise duties), to be made permanent after a judgment to oust respondents is passed. Respondents contend that the Court is without jurisdiction to try the appointment of ET members, since it is a constitutional right granted to Senate. Moreover, the petition is without without cause of action action since Tañada Tañada exhausted his his right to nominate nominate 2 more senators; he is in estoppel. They contend that the present action is not the proper remedy, remedy, but an appeal to public opinion. ISSUES:
1.WON Court has jurisdiction over the matter 2.WON Constitutional Constitutional right of CP can be exercised by NP, or the Committee on Rules for the Senate
HELD:
1. Yes. The Court has jurisdiction.
The case at bar is not an action against the Senate compelling them to allow petitioners to exercise duties as members of ET. The ET is part of neither House, even if the Senate elects its members. The issue is not the power of the Senate to elect or nominate, but the validity of the manner by which power was exercised (constitutionality).The Court is concerned with the existence and extent of said discretionary powers. 2. No. Although respondents alleged that the Constitutional mandate of 6 Senate members in the ET must be followed, this cannot be done without violating the spirit and philosophy of Art. 6, Sec. 2, which is to provide against partisan decisions. The respondents' practical interpretation of the law cannot be accepted; although they followed mandate on number, they disobeyed mandate on procedure. The contention that petitioner Tañada waived his rights or is in estoppel is not tenable. When interests of public policy and morals are at issue, the power to waive is inexistent. Tañada never led Primicias to believe that his nominations on behalf of the CP are valid. WHEREFORE: The Senate cannot elect members of the ET not nominated by the proper party, nor can the majority party elect more than 3 members of the ET. Furthermore, the Committee on Rules of the Senate has no standing to nominate, and the election of respondents Cuenco & Delgado void ab initio.
The appointment of the staff members are valid as it is a selection of personnel - a matter under the discretion of the Chairman. PARAS DISSENTING: The procedure or manner of nomination cannot affect the Constitutional mandate that the Senate is entitled to 6 seats in the ET. The number of seats (9) must be held fixed, since the Constitution must have consistent application. There is no rule against the minority party nominating a majority party member to the ET. Furthermore, the Senate, and not the parties, elect on the ET members, brushing aside partisan concerns. LABRADOR DISSENTING: The petition itself is unconstitutional under Art. 6 Sec. 2 because: 1.) 9-member ET mandate violated 2.) right to elect of Senate held in abeyance by refusal of minority party to nominate 3.) process of nomination effectively superior to power to elect (party v. Senate power) 4.) SC arrogation of power in determining Con Con’s proviso of 9 ET member
under certain circumstances. The refusal of Tañada to nominate must be considered a waiver of privilege based on constitutionality and reason, in order to reconcile two applications of Art. 6, Sec. 2.
