8/17/2019 Unsolicited Advice: Case Digest (Political Law)

VERA V. AVELINO, 77 Phil. 863

FACTS: Commission on Elections submitted last May 1946 to the President and the Congress of the
Philippines a report regarding the national elections held the previous month. It stated that by reason of
certain specified acts of terrorism and violence in the province of Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Bulacan and
Tarlac, the voting in said region did not reflect the true and free expression of the popular will.

During the session, when the senate convened on May 25, 1946, a pendatum resolution was approved
referring to the report ordering that Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose E. Romero – who had been
included among the 16 candidates for senator receiving the highest number of votes, proclaimed by the
Commissions on Elections – shall not be sworn, nor seated, as members of the chamber, pending the
termination of the of the protest lodged against their election.

Petitioners thus immediately instituted an action against their colleagues responsible for the resolution,
praying for an order to annul it and compelling respondents to permit them to occupy their seats and to
exercise their senatorial prerogative. They also allege that only the Electoral Tribunal had jurisdiction over
contests relating to their election, returns and qualifications. Respondents assert the validity of the pendatum
resolution.
.
ISSUE:

1.Whether the Commission on Elections has the jurisdiction to determine whether or not votes cast in the said
provinces are valid.

2.Whether administration of oath and the sitting of Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose Romero should be
deferred pending hearing and decision on the protests lodged against their elections.

RULING:

The Supreme Court refused to intervene, under the concept of separation of powers, holding that the case
was not a “contest”, and affirmed the inherent right of the legislature to determine who shall be admitted to its
membership.

Granting that the postponement of the administration of the oath amounts to suspension of the petitioners
from their office, and conceding arguendo that such suspension is beyond the power of the respondents, who
in effect are and acted as the Philippine Senate (Alejandrino vs. Quezon, 46 Phil., 83, 88),this petition should
be denied. As was explained in the Alejandrino case, we could not order one branch of the Legislature to
reinstate a member thereof. To do so would be to establish judicial predominance, and to upset the classic
pattern of checks and balances wisely woven into our institutional setup.

The Constitution provides (Article VI, section 15) that "for any speech or debate" in congress, Senators and
congressmen "shall not be questioned in any other place."

The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted this privilege to include the giving of a vote or the
presentation of a resolution.

. . . It would be a narrow view of the constitutional provision to limit it towards spoken in debate. The reason of
the rule is as forcible in its application to written reports presented in that body by its committees, to
resolutions offered, which, though in writing, must be reproduced in speech, and to the act of voting, . . .
(Kilbourn vs. thompson, 103 U.S., 204; 26 Law. ed., 377, p. 391.)

In the above case, Kilbourn, for refusing to answer questions put to him by the House of Representatives of
the United States Congress, concerning the business of a real estate partnership, was imprisoned for
contempt by resolution of the house. He sued to recover damages from the sergeant at arms and the
congressional members of the committee, who had caused him to be brought before the house, where he was
adjudged to be in contempt. The Supreme Court of the United States found that the resolution of the House
was void for want of jurisdiction in that body, but the action was dismissed as to the members of the
committee upon the strength of the herein above-mentioned congressional immunity. The court cited with
rccapanzana.blogspot.com/2010/08/case-digest-political-law.html 1/2
8/17/2019 Unsolicited Advice: Case Digest (Political Law)

approval the following excerpts from an earlier decision of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts:

These privileges are thus secured, not with the intention of protecting the members against prosecutions for
their own benefit, but to support the rights of the people, by enabling their representatives to execute the
functions of their office without fear of prosecutions, civil or criminal. I, therefore, think that the article ought not
to be construed strictly, but liberally, that the full design of it may be answered. . . (103 U.S., 203.) (Emphasis
ours.)

Commenting on this Congressional privilege, Willoughby relates apparently as controlling, the following
incident:

In 1910, several Members of Congress having been served with a writ of mandamus in a civil action brought
against them as members of the Joint Committee on Printing and growing out a refusal of a bid of the Valley
Paper Company, for the furnishing of paper, the Senate resolved that the Justice issuing the writ had
"unlawfully invaded the constitutional privileges and prerogatives of the Senate of the United States and of
three Senators; and was without jurisdiction to grant the rule, and Senators are directed to make no
appearance in response thereto." (Willoughby on the Constitution of the United States, Vol. I, Second Edition,
p. 616.)

Respondents are, by this proceeding, called to account for their votes in approving the Pendatum Resolution.
Having sworn to uphold the Constitution, we must enforce the constitutional directive. We must not question,
nor permit respondents to be questioned here in connection with their votes. (Kilbourn vs. Thompson, supra.)

Case dismissed.

rccapanzana.blogspot.com/2010/08/case-digest-political-law.html 2/2