JUSTICIABLE AND POLITICAL QUESTIONS

4) Tañada vs. Cuenco (G.R. No. L-44640, October 12, 1976)

FACTS:

 Petitioner Tañada is a senator while Petitioner Macapagal is a Congressman who lose the
senatorial election
 Macapagal questioned the election of other senators
 A Senate Electoral Tribunal was formed composed of:
o Jose Laurel, Fernando Lopez and Cipriano Primicias (Nacionalista Party) - 3
o Tañada (Citizens Party) - 1
o Mariano Cuenco and Francisco Delgado (Committee on Rules of the Senate) (also from
Nacionalista)- 2
 Function of Electoral Tribunal - the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective Members
 Tañada and Macapagal filed a case in the SC against Cuenco and Delgado and their staff for
violating the Constitution
 The Senate Electoral Tribunal, according to Sec 11, Art 6 of the 1935 Constitution should be
composed of 9 members:
o 3 - Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice,
o 6 - Members of the Senate (upon nomination)
 3 – from the party having the largest number of votes
 3 – from the party having the second largest number of votes
 Petitioners allege that the Senate consists of 23 Senators from Nacionalista Party and 1 Senator
(petitioner Tañada) from the Citizens Party and therefore 3 senators will be nominated by the
Nacionalista and 3 others nominated by the Citizens Party and not 5 from Nacionalista and only 1
from Citizens
 Respondents now question the authority of the SC

ISSUE:

 Whether the case involves a political question and not within the jurisdiction of the court

RULING:

 No. The case at bar is within the jurisdiction of the court and not a political question as alleged by
the respondents.
 The term "political question" connotes, in legal parlance, what it means in ordinary parlance,
namely, a question of policy. In other words, 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 Legislature or executive branch of the
Government." It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular
measure.
 Such is not the nature of the question for determination in the present case. Here, we are called
upon to decide whether the election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado, by the Senate, as members
 of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, upon nomination by Senator Primicias - a member and
spokesman of the party having the largest number of votes in the Senate - on behalf of its
Committee on Rules, contravenes the constitutional mandate that said members of the Senate
Electoral Tribunal shall be chosen "upon nomination of the party having the second largest
number of votes" in the Senate, and hence, is null and void. This is not a political question. The
Senate is not clothed with "full discretionary authority" in the choice of members of the Senate
Electoral Tribunal. The exercise of its power thereon is subject to constitutional limitations which
are claimed to be mandatory in nature. It is clearly within the legitimate prove of the judicial
department to pass upon the validity the proceedings in connection therewith “whether an
election of public officers has been in accordance with law is for the judiciary. Moreover, where
the legislative department has by statute prescribed election procedure in a given situation, the
judiciary may determine whether a particular election has been in conformity with such statute,
and, particularly, whether such statute has been applied in a way to deny or transgress on the
constitutional or statutory rights.”
 Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that, respondents Senators Mariano Jesus
Cuenco and Francisco A. Delgado have not been duly elected as Members of the Senate Electoral
Tribunal.

Sanidad Vs Comelec
G.R. No. L-44640 October 12, 1976 PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO V. SANIDAD, petitioner,  vs.
HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER,
respondents. G.R. No. L-44684. October 12,1976 VICENTE M. GUZMAN, petitioner,  vs.
COMMISSION ELECTIONS, respondent. G.R. No. L-44714. October 12,1976 RAUL M. GONZALES,
RAUL T. GONZALES, JR., and ALFREDO SALAPANTAN, petitioners,  vs. HONORABLE
COMMISSION ON SELECTIONS and HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER, respondents.
MARTIN, J,:

Facts: On October 23, 1989, Republic Act No. 6766, entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN
ORGANIC ACT FOR THE CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS REGION" was enacted into law. The
Commission on Elections, by virtue of the power vested by the 1987 Constitution, the Omnibus Election
Code (BP 881), said R.A. 6766 and other pertinent election laws, promulgated Resolution No. 2167, to
govern the conduct of the plebiscite on the said Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region. In a
petition dated November 20, 1989, herein petitioner Pablito V. Sanidad, who claims to be a newspaper
columnist of the "OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER, a weekly newspaper circulated
in the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras, assailed the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec
Resolution No. 2167, which provides: Section 19. Prohibition on columnists, commentators or
announcers. — During the plebiscite campaign period, on the day before and on the plebiscite day, no
mass media columnist, commentator, announcer or personality shall use his column or radio or television
time to campaign for or against the plebiscite issues It is alleged by petitioner that said provision is void
and unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of
the press enshrined in the Constitution.

Issue : WON the said Section 19 of resolution No 2167 is unconstitutional

Held: it is clear from Art. IX-C of the 1987 Constitution that what was granted to the Comelec was the
power to supervise and regulate the use and enjoyment of franchises, permits or other grants issued for
the operation of transportation or other public utilities, media of communication or information to the end
that equal opportunity, time and space, and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor,
for public information campaigns and forums among candidates are ensured Neither Article IX-C of the
Constitution nor Section 11 (b), 2nd par. of R.A. 6646 can be construed to mean that the Comelec has
also been granted the right to supervise and regulate the exercise by media practitioners themselves of
their right to expression during plebiscite periods. Media practitioners exercising their freedom of
expression during plebiscite periods are neither the franchise holders nor the candidates. In fact, there are
no candidates involved in a plebiscite. Therefore, Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 has no
statutory basis. While the limitation does not absolutely bar petitioner's freedom of expression, it is still a
restriction on his choice of the forum where he may express his view. No reason was advanced by
respondent to justify such abridgement. We hold that this form of regulation is tantamount to a restriction
of petitioner's freedom of expression for no justifiable reason. Plebiscite issues are matters of public
concern and importance. The people's right to be informed and to be able to freely and intelligently make
a decision would be better served by access to an unabridged discussion of the issues, including the
forum. The people affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by
restrictions on the forum where the right to expression may be exercised. Comelec spaces and Comelec
radio time may provide a forum for expression but they do not guarantee full dissemination of
information to the public concerned because they are limited to either specific portions in newspapers or
to specific radio or television times

Angara vs Electoral Commission GR No 45081 15 July 1936

09MONDAYMAR 2015

POSTED BY RACHEL CHAN IN CASE DIGESTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

≈ LEAVE A COMMENT
Facts: Petitioner, Jose Angara won the election for National Assembly for the first district of Tayabas
Province. The National Assembly passed Resolution No 8 declaring the deadline for filing protest on 3
December 1935.On the other hand the Electoral Commission set the deadline on 9 December 1935.
Losing candidate, Pedro Ynsua filed before the Electoral Commission a Motion of Protest against the
election of Angara. Angara contended in his Motion to Dismiss the Protest that  Resolution No. 8 of the
National Assembly was adopted in the legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative to prescribe the
period during which protests against the election of its members should be presented and that the protest
was filed out of the prescribed period. Electoral Commission dismissed Angara’s petition. Angara filed
for the issuance of a writ of prohibition to restrain and prohibit the Electoral Commission from taking
cognizance of Ynsua’s protest.

Issue: Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to review the rulings of the Electoral Commission
organized under the National Assembly.
Decision: Writ of prohibition against the Electoral Commission is denied. In cases of conflict between
several departments and among the agencies, the judiciary is the only constitutional mechanism devised
to resolve the conflict and allocate constitutional boundaries. The judicial supremacy is but the power of
judicial review in actual and appropriate cases and controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no
one branch or agency of the government transcends the Constitution, which is the source of all authority.

The grant of power to the Electoral Commission to judge all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the National Assembly, is intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it
had remained originally in the legislature. The express lodging of that power in the Electoral Commission
is an implied denial of the exercise of that power by the National Assembly. And this is as effective a
restriction upon the legislative power as an express prohibition in the Constitution. If the Court concede to
the power claimed of the National Assembly and cut off the power of the commission to lay down the
period to file protests, the grant of power to the commission would be ineffective.