Lorenzo Taada vs Mariano Cuenco

103 Phil. 1051 Political Law Constitutional Law Political Question Defined Members
of the Senate Electoral Tribunal

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.
But how should the gridlock be resolved?
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.