TAÑADA & MACAPAGAL VS. CUENCO ET. AL. Petition for Certiorari & Preliminary Injunction
Ponente: Pers Person onal alit itie ies: s:
Justice Co Concepcion Lore Lorenz nzo o Tañ Tañad ada a Diosdado Macapagal Petitioners
member members, s, since since it is a consti constitut tution ional al right right granted to Senate. Moreover, the petition is witho ithout ut cause ause of acti ction sinc since e Tañada ñada exha exhaus uste ted d his his righ rightt to nomi nomina nate te 2 more more senators; he is in estoppel. They contend that the present action is not the proper remedy, but an appeal to public opinion. ISSUES:
Mariano Jesus Cuenco Francisco Delgado Alfredo Cruz Catalina Cayetano Manuel Serapio Placido Reyes Fernando Hipolito Respondents Tañada, Teehankee & Macapagal for petitioners Solicitior General Ambrosio Padilla Solicitor Troadio Quizon Jr. For respondents FACTS: On Feb. Feb. 22, 22, 1956 1956,, the the Senat enate e on beha behalf lf of the the Naci Nacion onal alis ista ta Part Party y elec electe ted d respondents Cuenco & Delgado as members of the Senate Senate Elect Electora orall Tribu Tribunal nal upon upon the nomi nomina nati tion on of Sena Senato torr Prim Primic icia ias, s, an NP member. The two seats, originally for minority party nominees, were filled with NP members to meet the Constitutional mandate under Sec. 2 Art. 6, over the objections of lone Citizen Party Party Senato Senatorr Tañada. añada. Conseq Consequen uently tly,, the Chairman of the Tribunal appointed the rest of the respondents respondents as staff members of Cuenco Cuenco & Del Delgad gado. Peti etition ioner all alleges eges that hat the nomination by Sen. Primicias on behalf of the Committee on Rules for the Senate, violates Sec. 2, Art. 6 of PC, since 3 seats on the ET are are rese reserv rved ed for for mino minori rity ty sena senato tors rs duly duly nominated by the minority party representatives. Furthermore, as respondents are about to decide on Electoral Case No. 4 of Senate, the case at bar is a violation not only of Tañada's right as CP member of ET, but respondent Macapagal's right to an impartial body body that hat will ill try his elec electi tion on prot protes est. t. Peti Petiti tion oner ers s pray pray for for a writ writ of prel prelim imin inar ary y inju injunc ncti tion on agai agains nstt respo espond nden ents ts (can (canno nott exercise exercise duties), duties), to be made permanent permanent after after a judgm judgment ent to oust oust respon responden dents ts is passed passed.. Respondents contend that the Court is without jur juris isdi dict ctio ion n to try try the the appo appoin intm tmen entt of ET
1. WON Court Court has jurisd jurisdict iction ion over over the the matter 2. WON Const Constit ituti utiona onall right right of CP CP can can be exercised by NP, or the Committee on Rules for the Senate HELD: 1. Yes. The Court has jurisdiction. RATI RATIO: O: The The case case at bar bar is not not an acti action on 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 not the the powe powerr of the the Sena Senate te to elec electt 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. RATIO: Although respondents allege that the Constitutional mandate of 6 Senate members in the ET must must be follow followed, ed, this cannot cannot be done without violating the spirit & philosophy of Art. 6, Sec. 2, which is to provide against partisan decisions. The respondents' practical interpretation of the law (modifying law to fit the situation situation)) cannot cannot be accepted; accepted; although although they they foll follow owed ed mand mandat ate e on numb number er,, they they diso disobe beye yed d mand mandat ate e on proc proced edur ure. e. The The contention contention that petitione petitionerr Tañada waived waived his rights or is in estoppel is not tenable. When interests of public policy & morals are at issue, the power to waive is inexistent. Tañada 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 can the the majo majori rity ty part party y elec electt more more than than 3
members of the ET. Furthermore, the CRS has no standing to nominate, and the election of respondents Cuenco & Delgado void ab initio. The appoin appointme tment nt of the staff staff member members s 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 Consti mandate that the Senate is entitled to 6 seats in the ET. ET. The number of seats (9) must be held fixed, fixed, since the Consti must have consistent application. There There is no rule rule agains againstt the minority minority party nominating a majority party member to the ET. ET. Furthermore, the Senate, and not the parties, elec electt on the the ET memb member ers, s, brus brushi hing ng asid aside e partisan concerns. LABRADOR DISSENTING: The petition petition itself itself is unconstitu unconstitutiona tionall under Art. 6 Sec. 2 because: 1. 9-memb 9-member er ET mandat mandate e viol violate ated d 2. right to elect of Senate held in abeyance by refusal of minority party to nominate 3. proc proces ess s of nomi nomina nattion ion effe effect ctiively vely superi superior or to power power to elect elect (party (party v. Senate power) 4. SC arro arrogat gation ion of power power in dete determi rminin ning g Con Con’s proviso of <9 ET members under certain circumstances The refusal of Tañada to nominate must be considered a waiver of privilege based on cons consti titu tuti tion onal alit ity y and and reas reason on,, in orde orderr to reconcile two applications of Art. 6, Sec. 2.
