Mabanag v.

Lopez Vito
GR L-1123, 5 March 1947
Facts:Three of the plaintiff senators and eight of the plaintiff representatives had been
proclaimed by a majority vote of the Commission on Elections as having been elected senators
and representatives in the elections held on 23 April 1946. The three senators were suspended
by the Senate shortly after the opening of the first session of Congress following the elections,
on account of alleged irregularities in their election. The eight representatives since their
election had not been allowed to sit in the lower House, except to take part in the election of the
Speaker, for the same reason, although they had not been formally suspended. A resolution for
their suspension had been introduced in the House of Representatives, but that resolution had
not been acted upon definitely by the House when the petition for prohibition was filed. As a
consequence these three senators and eight representatives did not take part in the passage of
the congressional resolution, designated "Resolution of both houses proposing an amendment
to the Constitution of the Philippines to be appended as an ordinance thereto," nor was their
membership reckoned within the computation of the necessary three-fourths vote which is
required in proposing an amendment to the Constitution. If these members of Congress had
been counted, the affirmative votes in favor of the proposed amendment would have been short
of the necessary three-fourths vote in either branch of Congress. The petition for prohibition
sought to prevent the enforcement of said congressional resolution, as it is allegedly contrary to
the Constitution. The members of the Commission on Elections, the Treasurer of the
Philippines, the Auditor General, and the Director of the Bureau of Printing are made
defendants. Eight senators, seventeen representatives, and the presidents of the Democratic
Alliance, the Popular Front and the Philippine Youth Party.
Issue: Whether the Court may inquire upon the irregularities in the approval of the resolution
proposing an amendment to the Constitution.
Held: It is a doctrine well established that political questions are not within the province of the
judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal with such questions has been conferred upon
the courts by express constitutional or statutory provision. This doctrine is predicated on the
generally accepted principle of separation of powers. The difficulty lies in determining what
matters fall within the meaning of political question. The term is not susceptible of exact
definition, and precedents and authorities are not always in full harmony as to the scope of the
restrictions, on this ground, on the courts to meddle with the actions of the political departments
of the government. If a political question conclusively binds the judges out of respect to the
political departments, a duly certified law or resolution also binds the judges under the "enrolled
bill rule" born of that respect. If ratification of an amendment is a political question, a proposal
which leads to ratification has to be a political question. The two steps complement each other
in a scheme intended to achieve a single objective. It is to be noted that the amendatory
process as provided in section I of Article XV of the Philippine Constitution "consists of (only)
two distinct parts: proposal and ratification." There is no logic in attaching political character to
one and withholding that character from the other. Proposal to amend the Constitution is a
highly political function performed by the Congress in its sovereign legislative capacity and
committed to its charge by the Constitution itself. The exercise of this power is even in
dependent of any intervention by the Chief Executive. If on grounds of expediency scrupulous
attention of the judiciary be needed to safeguard public interest, there is less reason for judicial
inquiry into the validity of a proposal then into that of ratification.

Tanada vs Cuenco
103 Phil. 1051
FACTS:
After the 1955 national elections, the membership in the Senate was overwhelmingly occupied
by the Nacionalista Party. The lone opposition senator was Lorenzo Taada who belonged to
the Citizens Party. Diosdado Macapagal on the other hand was a senatorial candidate who lost
the bid but was contesting it before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET). But prior to a decision
the SET would have to choose its members. It is provided that the SET should be composed of
9 members comprised of the following: 3 justices of the Supreme Court, 3 senators from the
majority party and 3 senators from the minority party. But since there is only one minority
senator the other two SET members supposed to come from the minority were filled in by the
NP. Taada assailed this process before the Supreme Court. So did Macapagal because he
deemed that if the SET would be dominated by NP senators then he, as a member of the
Liberalista Party will not have any chance in his election contest. Senator Mariano Cuenco et al
(members of the NP) averred that the Supreme Court cannot take cognizance of the issue
because it is a political question. Cuenco argued that the power to choose the members of the
SET is vested in the Senate alone and the remedy for Taada and Macapagal was not to raise
the issue before judicial courts but rather to leave it before the bar of public opinion.
ISSUE: Whether or not the issue is a political question.
HELD:
No. The SC took cognizance of the case and ruled that the issue is a justiciable question. The
term Political Question connotes what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, 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 legislative or executive branch of the government. It is concerned with issues
dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.
In this case, the issue at bar is not a political question. The Supreme Court is not being asked
by Taada to decide upon the official acts of Senate. The issue being raised by Taada was
whether or not the elections of the 5 NP members to the SET are valid which is a judicial
question. Note that the SET is a separate and independent body from the Senate which does
not perform legislative acts.
The nomination of the last two members (who would fill in the supposed seat of the minority
members) must not come from the majority party. In this case, the Chairman of the SET,
apparently already appointed members that would fill in the minority seats (even though those
will come from the majority party). This is still valid provided the majority members of the SET
(referring to those legally sitting) concurred with the Chairman. Besides, the SET may set its
own rules in situations like this provided such rules comply with the Constitution.

Samuel Occena V. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC)

104 SCRA 1 (April 2, 1981)
FACTS:
Petitioners, Samuel Occena and Ramon Gonzales, suing as taxpayers, petitioned for the
prohibition against the validity of the three Batasang Pambansa Resolutions proposing
constitutional amendments, which goes further than merely assailing their alleged constitutional
infirmity.
ISSUE:
1) Whether or not the 1973 Constitution should be considered in full force and effect?
2) Whether or not the Interim Batasang Pambansa has the power to propose amendments?
HELD:
1) Yes, since the 1973 Constitution is the fundamental Law, being in force and effect as of
Januaray 17, 1973. In Javellana v. the Executive Secretary, it was ruled that the present
Consitution is in force and effective, resolving all doubts. Similar cases were previously cited
concurring with the effectivity of the present Constitution in the first years of its effectivity alone.
Hence, the court sits to uphold the ruling.
2) The Interim Batasang Pambansa has the power to propose amendments, as vested the
provisions of the 1976 amendment, having the same function as the National Assembly upon
special call by the Prime Minister, based upon the transitory provisions found in the 1973
Constitution.
There can be no argument against the validity of the amendment of the law, because
amendments cover revision or total overhaul of the Constitution. All infirmities were put to rest
the moment the amendment was ratified by the sovereign will of the people. Moreover,
necessary votes to approve the proposition were met by the majority of its members. Therefore,
the petitions were dismissed for lack of merit.