Vera v. Avelino, G.R. No. L-543, 31 August 1946

[No. L-543.
August 31, 1946]
JOSE O. VERA ET AL., petitioners, vs. JOSE A. AVELINO

ET AL., respondents.
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SEPARATION OF POWERS;

MANDAMUS; LEGISLATIVE BODY NOT
COMPELLABLE BY, TO PERFORM LEGISLATIVE
FUNCTIONS.—Mandamus will not lie against the
legislative body, its members, or its officers, to compel the
performance of purely legislative duties.
2. ID.; ID.; JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT WITHOUT POWER

TO REVISE LEGISLATIVE ACTION.—The judicial
department has no power to revise even the most
arbitrary and unfair action of the legislative department,
or of either house thereof, taken in pursuance of the power
committed exclusively to that department by the
Constitution.
3. ID.; ID.; POWER OF SUPREME COURT TO ANNUL

LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT.—In proper cases and with
appropriate parties, this court may annul any legislative
enactment that fails to observe the constitutional
limitations.
4. ID.; ID.; JUDICIARY NOT REPOSITORY OF REMEDIES

FOR ALL POLIT-ICAL OR SOCIAL WRONGS.—The
judiciary is not the respository of remedies for all political
or social ills.
5. ID.; ID.; PROHIBITION; SCOPE OF.—Prohibition refers

only to proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, or
person, exercising functions judicial or ministerial. As the
respondents exercise legislative functions, the dispute
falls beyond the scope of such special remedy.
6. ID.; ID.; ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL; AUTHORITY OF;

FUNCTIONS OF ASSEMBLY ON ELECTION AND
QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS.—The Constitutional
Convention circumscribed the authority of the Electoral
Tribunal to "contests" relating to the election, etc., and did
not intend to give it all the functions of the Assembly on
the subject of election and qualifications of its members.
7. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.—The House or Senate retains the
authority to defer the oath-taking of any of its members,
pending an election contest.
8. ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; ID.—Independently of constitutional

or statutory grant, the Senate has, under parliamentary
practice, the power to inquire into the credentials of any
member and the latter's right to participate in its
deliberations.
9. ID.; ID.; CONGRESS; EXTENT OF LEGISLATIVE

POWER.—The legislative power of the Philippine
Congress is plenary, subject only to such limitations, as
are found in the Republic's Constitution.
193
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 193
Vera vs. Avelino
10. ID.; ID.; ID.; SENATE; POWER TO ADOPT RULES FOR

ITS PROCEEDINGS.—The Senate, as a branch of the
legislative department, has the constitutional power to
adopt rules for its proceedings, and by legislative practice
the power to promulgate such orders as may be necessary
to maintain its prestige and to preserve its dignity.
11. ID.; ID.; SUPREME COURT; JUSTICES DESIGNATED

TO ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL NOT DISQUALIFIED IN
CASE AT BAR.—The designation of several justices to the
electoral tribunals did not disqualify them in this
litigation.
12. ID.; ID.; LEGISLATURE; PRESUMPTION THAT IT

ACTED WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS.—It is
presumed that the legislature has acted within its
constitutional powers.
13. ID.; ID.; CONSTRUCTION OF CONSTITUTION;

WEIGHT OF PROCEEDINGS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION.—The proceedings of the Constitutional
Convention are less conclusive of the proper construction
of the constitution than are legislative proceedings of the
proper construction of a statute.
14. ID.; ID.; CONGRESS; DUTY OF PROCLAIMED

CANDIDATES TO ASSUME OFFICE AND ATTEND
SESSION.—Section 12 of Commonwealth Act No. 725 is
addressed to the individual member of Congress, imposes
on him the obligation to come to Manila, and join his
colleagues in regular session, and does not imply that if,
for any reason, he is disqualified, the House is powerless
to postpone his admission.
15. ID.; ID.; ID.; IMMUNITY OF MEMBERS FOR SPEECH

OR DEBATE; GIVING OF VOTE OR PRESENTATION
OF RESOLUTION INCLUDED.—The constitutional
provision that "for any speech or debate" in Congress,
Senators and Congressmen "shall not be questioned in any
other place," includes the giving of a vote or the presen-
tation of a resolution.
Per PERFECTO, J., dissenting:
16. CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL LAW;

ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL; EXCLUSIVE POWER TO
JUDGE ALL CONTESTS RELATING TO ELECTION,
RETURNS, AND QUALIFICATIONS OF SENATORS
AND REPRESENTATIVES.—The power to judge "all
contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications" of senators and representatives, is
exclusively lodged in the respective Electoral Tribunal, the
exclusivity being emphasized by the use of the word "sole"
by the drafters of the Constitution.
17. ID.; CONSTITUTION; CO-AUTHORS IN BETTER

POSITION TO CONSTRUE.—The co-authors of the
fundamental law are in a better position to construe the
very document in which they have
194
194 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Vera vs. Avelino
infused the ideas which boild in their minds, and gave a

definite form to their own conviction and decisions.
18. In.; SENATE; "QUORUM" TO DO BUSINESS.—To do

business, the Senate, being composed of 24 members,
needs the presence of at least 13 senators. "A smaller
number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the
attendance of absent members," but not in exercising any
other power, such as the adoption of the Pendatun
Resolution.
19. CRIMINAL LAW; FAILURE TO DISCHARGE

ELECTIVE OFFICE; PENALTY.—If senators should fail
to discharge the duties of their respective offices, they will
incur criminal responsibility and may be punished,
according to the Revised Penal Code, with arresto mayor
or a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos or both.
20. ID. ; VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY ;
PENALTY.-—No one may prevent senators from
performing the duties of their office, such as attending the
meetings of the Senate or of any of its committees or
subcommittees, or from expressing their opinions or
casting their votes, without being criminally guilty of a
violation of parliamentary immunity, a criminal offense
punished by the Penal Code with prisión mayor.
21. CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL LAW; SENATE;

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; CERTIFICATE OF
CANVASS AND PROCLAMATION CONCLUSIVE AS TO
RlGHT OF CANDIDATES PROCLAIMED TO SEAT IN
SENATE.—The petitioners' credentials consisting of the
certificate of canvass and proclamation of election issued
by the Commission on Elections, are conclusive as to their
right to their seats in the Senate.
22. ID.; ELECTORAL COMMISSION; POWER OF; EXTENT.

—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.
23. ID.; SEPARATION OF POWERS; VULGAR NOTION OF.

—The vulgar notion of separation of powers appears to be
simple, rudimentary, and clear-cut. As a consequence, the
principle of separation of powers creates in the mind of the
ignorant or uninitiated the images of the different
departments of government as individual units, each one
existing independently, all alone by itself, completely
disconnected from the remaining all others.
195
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 195
Vera vs. Avelino
The picture in their mental panorama offers, in effect, the

appearance of each department as a complete government
by itself. Each governmental department appears to be a
veritable state in the general set up of the Philippine
state, like the autonomous kingdoms and princedoms of
the maharajahs of India.
24. ID.; ID.; CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPTION OF.—The
only acceptable conception of the principle of separation of
powers within our democracy is the constitutional one.
The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our
system of government. It obtains not through express
provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each
department of the government has exclusive cognizance of
matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its
own sphere. The Constitution has provided for an
elaborate system of checks and balances to secure
coordination in the workings of the various departments of
the government. For example, the Chief Executive under
our Constitution is so far made a check on the legislative
power that this assent is required in the enactment of
laws. This, however, is subject to the further check that a
bill may become a law notwithstanding the refusal of the
President to approve it, by a vote of two-thirds or three-
fourths, as the case may be, of the National Assembly. The
President has also the right to convene the Assembly in
special session whenever he chooses. On the other hand,
the National Assembly operates as a check on the
Executive in the sense that its consent through its
Commission on Appointments is necessary in the
appointment of certain officers; and the concurrence of a
majority of all its members is essential to the conclusion of
treaties. Furthermore, in its power to determine what
courts other than the Supreme Court shall be
established,,. to define their jurisdiction and to
appropriate funds for their support, the National
Assembly controls the judicial department to a certain
extent. The Assembly also exercises the judicial power of
trying impeachments. And the judiciary in turn, with the
Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the
other departments in the exercise of its power to
determine the law, and hence to declare executive and
legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution.
25. ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; WHOLE GOVERNMENT AS A UNIT.—

The idea of unity is fundamental in. the Constitution. The
whole government must be viewed as a unit, and all
departments and other government organs, agencies and
instrumentalities as parts of that unit in the same way as
the head, the hands, and the heart are parts of a human
body. As a matter of fact, there
196
Vera vs. Avelino

is no government power vested exclusively in any
authority, office, or government agency. To understand
well the true meaning of the principle of separation of
powers, it is necessary to remember and pay special
attention to the fact that the idea of separation refers, not
to departments, organs, or other government agencies, but
to powers exercised. The things separated are not the
subject of the powers, but the functions to be performed. It
means division of functions, but not of officials or organs
which Will perform them. It is analogous to the economic
principle of division of labor practised in a factory where
multiple manufacturing processes are performed to
produce a finished article.
26. ID.; ID.; ID.; SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL;

POWER TO JUDGE. ELECTORAL CONTESTS AND TO
SUSPEND IN RELATION THERETO; CASE AT BAR.—
From the facts of the case, it is evident that respondents
encroached upon, invaded, and usurped the ancillary
power to suspend petitioners in relation to the power to
judge electoral contests concerning senators, a power
which the Constitution specifically assigns to the Senate
Electoral Tribunal, exclusive of all other departments,
agencies, or organs of government. The power of
suspension is accessory, adjective, complementary, and"
ancillary to the substantial power to judge said electoral
contests. The accessory must follow the principal; the
adjective, the substantive; the complementary, the
complemented.
27. ID.; SENATE; POWER TO SUSPEND MEMBERS, LACK

OF.—The Senate lacks the power of suspension, not only
as ancillary remedy in senatorial election contests, but
even in the exercise of the Senate judicial power to punish
its members for disorderly conduct.
28. ID.; SEPARATION OF POWERS; SUPREME COURT;

JURISDICTION TO DECIDE QUESTION OF VALIDITY
OR NULLITY OF SENATE RESOLUTION.—The
principle of separation of powers can not be invoked to
deny the Supreme Court jurisdiction in this case, because
to decide the question of validity or nullity of the
Pendatun Resolution, of whether petitioners are illegally
deprived of their constitutional rights and privileges as
senators of the Philippines, of whether respondents must
or must not be enjoined by injunction or prohibition from
illegally and unconstitutionally trampling.upon the
constitutional and legal rights of petitioners, is a function
judicial in nature and, not having been assigned by the
Constitution to other department of government, is
logically within the province of courts of justice, including
the Supreme Court.
197
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 197
Vera vs. Avelino
29. ID.; ID.; ID.; POWER TO DECLARE LAW

UNCONSTITUTIONAL.—If the law enacted is
unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has the power to
declare it so and deny effect to the same.
30. ID.; ID.; ID.; ANGARA vs. ELECTORAL COMMISSION

(63 PHIL., 139), PARALLEL WITH CASE AT BAR.—The
facts and legal issues in Angara vs. Electoral Commission
(63 Phil., 139), are in exact parallel with those in the case
at bar. Since the decision in that case has been written,
the question as to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to take
cognizance and decide controversies such as the present
one and to grant redress for or against parties like those
included in this litigation, has been unmistakably and
definitely settled in this jurisdiction.
31. CONTEMPT; SUPREME COURT; POWER TO PUNISH

SENATORS FOR CONTEMPT.—Should the respondent
senators disobey any order of the Supreme Court, they
may be punished for contempt.
32. CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL LAW;

ELECTIONS; ELECTION CONTESTS; SCOPE UNDER
CONSTITUTION.—The election contests mentioned in
section 11 of Article VI of the Constitution include
contests "relating to qualifications" of the respective
members of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives.
33. ID.; CONSTITUTION; CHARACTER OF.—The

Constitution of the Philippines is both a grant and a
limitation of powers of Government decreed by our people,
on whom sovereignty resides and from whom all
government authority emanates.
34. ID.; CONGRESS; LEGISLATIVE POWER NOT VESTED

IN ANY BRANCH ALONE.—The legislative power is
vested in Congress, composed of the Senate and the House
of Representatives, and not in any of its branches alone.
ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Preliminary

injunction.
The acts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Jose W. Diokno and Antonio Barredo for petitioners.
Vicente J, Francisco and Solicitor General Tañada for
respondents.
J. Antonio Araneta of the Lawyers' Guild as amicus
curisæ.
BENGZON, J.:
Pursuant to a constitutional provision (section 4, Article X),

the Commission on Elections submitted, last May, to the
President and the Congress of the Philippines, its
198

Vera vs. Avelino
report on the national elections held the preceding month,

and, among other things, stated that, by reason of certain
specified acts of terrorism and violence in the Provinces of
Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Bulacan and Tarlac, the voting in
said region did not reflect the true and free expression of
the popular will.
When the Senate convened on May 25, 1946, it
proceeded with the selection of its officers. Thereafter in
the course of the session, a resolution was approved
referring to the report and ordering that, pending the
termination of the protest lodged against their election, the
herein petitioners, Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose
E. Romero—who had been included among the sixteen
candidates for senator receiving the highest number of
votes, proclaimed by the Commission on Elections—shall
not be sworn, nor seated, as members of that chamber.
Pertinent parts of the resolution—called Pendatun—are
these:
"WHEREAS the Commission on Elections, charged
under the Constitution with the duty of insuring free,
orderly, and honest elections in the Philippines, reported to
the President of the Philippines on May 23, 1946, that
" '* * * Reports also reached this Commission to the effect that in
the Provinces of Bulacan, Pampanga, Tarlac and Nueva Ecija, the
secrecy of the ballot was actually violated; that armed bands saw
to it that their candidates were voted for; and that the great
majority of the voters, thus coerced or intimidated, suffered from
a paralysis of judgment in the matter of exercising the right of
suffrage; considering all those acts of terrorism, violence and
intimidation in connection with elections which are more or less
general in the Provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac, Bulacan and
Nueva Ecija, this Commission believes that the election in the
provinces aforesaid did not reflect the true and free expression of
the popular will. It should be stated, however. that the
Commission is without jurisdiction, to determine whether or not
the votes cast in the said provinces which, according to these
reports have been cast under the influence of threats or violence,
are valid or invalid. * * *'
"WHEREAS, the minority report of the Hon. Vicente de

Vera, member of the Commission on Elections, says among
other things, that
199
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 199

Vera vs. Avelino
'we know that as a result of this chaotic condition, many

residents of the four provinces have voluntarily banished
themselves from their home towns in order not to be
subjected to the prevailing oppression and to avoid being
victimized or losing their lives'; and that after the election
dead bodies had been found with notes attached to their
necks, reading, 'Bomoto kami kay Roxas' (we voted for
Roxas);
"WHEREAS the same Judge De Vera says in his
minority report that in the four Provinces of Pampanga,
Tarlac, Bulacan, and Nueva Ecija, the worst terrorism
reigned during and after the election, and that if the
elections held in the aforesaid provinces were annulled as
demanded by the circumstances mentioned in the report of
the Commission, Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno, and Jose
Romero, would not and could not have been declared
elected;
* * * * * * *
"WHEREAS the terrorism resorted to by the lawless
elements in the four provinces mentioned above in order to
insure the election of the candidates of the Conservative
wing of the Nationalist Party is of public knowledge and
that such terrorism continues to this day; that before the
elections Jose O. Vera himself declared as campaign
Manager of the Osmeña faction that he was sorry if
Presidential Candidate Manuel A. Roxas could not
campaign in the Huk provinces because his life would be
endangered; and that because of the constant murders of
his candidates and leaders, Presidential Candidate Roxas
found it necessary to appeal to American High
Commissioner Paul V. McNutt for protection, which appeal
American High Commissioner personally referred to
President Sergio Osmeña for appropriate action, and the
President in turn ordered the Secretary of the Interior to
afford the necessary protection, thus impliedly admitting
the existence and reign of such terrorism;
"WHEREAS the Philippines, a Republic State,
embracing the principles of democracy, must condemn all
acts that seek to defeat the popular will;
"WHEREAS it is essential, in order to maintain alive
the respect for democratic institutions among our people,
that no man or group of men be permitted to profit from
the results of an election held under coercion, in violation of
law, and contrary to the principle of freedom of choice
which should underlie all elections under the Constitution;
"WHEREAS protests against the election of Jose O.
Vera, Ramon Diokno, and Jose Romero, have been filed
with the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate of the Philippines
on the basis of the findings of the Commission on Elections
above quoted;
"Now, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Senate of the
Philippines in session assembled, as it hereby resolves, to
defer the administration of oath and the sitting of Jose O.
Vera, Ramon Diokno, and Jose
200

Vera vs. Avelino
Romero, pending the hearing and decision on the protests

lodged against their elections, wherein the terrorism
averred in the report of the Commission on Elections and
in the report of the Provost Marshal constitutes the ground
of said protests and will therefore be the subject of
investigation and determination."
Petitioners immediately instituted this action against
their colleagues responsible for the resolution. They pray
for an order annulling it, and compelling respondents to
permit them to occupy their seats, and to exercise their
senatorial prerogatives.
In their pleadings, respondents traverse the jurisdiction
of this court, and assert the validity of the Pendatun Reso
lution.
The issues, few and clear-cut, were thoroughly discussed
at the extended oral argument and in comprehensive
memoranda submitted by both sides.
A. No JURISDICTION
Way back in 1924, Senator Jose Alejandrino assaulted a

fellow-member in the Philippine Senate. That body, after
investigation, adopted a resolution, suspending him from
office for one year. He applied here for mandamus and
injunction to nullify the suspension and to require his
colleagues to reinstate him. This court believed the
suspension was legally wrong, because, as senator
appointed by the Governor-General, he could not be
disciplined by the Philippine Senate; but it denied the
prayer for relief, mainly upon the theory of the separation
of the three powers, Executive, Legislative and Judicial.
(Alejandrino vs. Quezon, 46 Phil., 81.) Said the decision:
"* * * Mandamus will not lie against the legislative body, its
members, or its officers, to compel the performance of duties
purely legislative in their character which therefore pertain to
their legislative functions and over which they have exclusive
control. The courts cannot dictate action in this respect without a
gross usurpation of power. So it has been held that where a
member has been expelled by the legislative body, the courts have
no power, irrespective of whether the expulsion was right or
wrong, to issue a mandate to compel his reinstatement. (Code of
Civil Procedure, sections 222,
201
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 201

Vera vs. Avelino
515; 18 R. C. L., 186, 187; Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 190;

French vs. Senate [1905], 146 Cal., 604; Hiss vs. Bartlett [1855],
69 Mass., 468; Ex parte Echols [1886], 39 Ala., 698; State vs. Bolte
[1889], 151 Mo., 362; De Diego vs. House of Delegates [1904], 5
Porto Rico, 235; Greenwood Cemetery Land Co. vs. Routt [1892],
17 Colo., 156; State ex rel. Cranmer vs. Thorson [1896], 33 L. R.
A., 582; People ex rel. Billings vs. Bissell [1857], 19 111., 229;
People ex rel. Bruce vs. Dunne [1913], 258 111., 441; People ex rel.
La Chicote vs. Best [1907], 187 N. Y., 1; Abueva vs. Wood [1924],
45 Phil., 612.)" (Supra, pp. 88, 89.)
"* * * Under our form of government the judicial department
has no power to revise even the most arbitrary and unf air action
of the legislative department, or of either house thereof, taken in
pursuance of the power committed exclusively to that department
by the constitution." (Supra, p. 93.)
"No court has ever held and we apprehend no court will ever
hold that it possesses the power to direct the Chief Executive or
the Legislature or a branch thereof to take any particular action.
If a court should ever be so rash as to thus trench on the domain
of either of the other departments, it will be the end of popular
govenrment as we know it in democracies." (Supra, p. 94.)
"Conceding therefore that the power of the Senate to punish its
members for disorderly behavior does not authorize it to suspend
an appointive member from the exercise of his office for one year,
conceding what has been so well stated by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, conceding all this and more, yet the writ prayed for
cannot issue, for the all-conclusive reason that the Supreme Court
does not possess the power of coercion to make the Philippine
Senate take any particular action. * * *" (Supra, p. 97.)
The same hands-off policy had been previously followed in

Severino vs. Governor-General and Provincial Board of
Occidental Negros (16 Phil., 366) and Abueva vs. Wood (45
Phil., 612).
At this point we could pretend to erudition by tracing
the origin, development and various applications of the
theory of separation of powers, transcribing herein whole
paragraphs from adjudicated cases to swell the pages of
judicial output. Yet the temptation must be resisted, and
the parties spared a stiff dose of jurisprudential lore about
a principle, which, after all, is the first fundamental
imparted to every student of Constitutional Law.
202

Vera vs. Avelino
Not that a passable excuse would be lacking for such a

dissertation. The advent of the Republic, and the
consequent finality of our views on constitutional issues,
may call for a definition of concepts and attitudes. But
surely, there will be time enough, as cases come up for
adjudication.
Returning to the instant litigation, it presents no more
than the questions, whether the Alejandrino doctrine still
obtains, and whether the admitted facts disclose any
features justifying departure therefrom.
When the Commonwealth Constitution was approved in
1935, the existence of three coordinate, co-equal and co-
important branches of the government was ratified and
confirmed. That Organic Act contained some innovations
which established additional exceptions to the well-known
separation of powers; f or instance, the creation of the
Electoral Tribunal wherein Justices of the Supreme Court
participate in the decision of congressional election
protests, the grant of rule-making power to the Supreme
Court, etc.; but in the main, the independence of one power
from the other was maintained. And the Convention—
composed mostly of lawyers (143 out of a total of 202
members), fully acquainted with the Abueva, Alejandrino
and Severino precedents—did not choose to modify their
constitutional doctrine, even as it altered 1
some
fundamental tenets theretofore well established.
However, it is alleged that, in 1936, Angara vs. Electoral
Commission (63 Phil., 139), modified the aforesaid ruling.
We do not agree. There is no pronouncement in the latter
decision, making specific reference to the Alejandrino
incident regarding our power—or lack of it—to interfere
with the functions of the Senate. And three years later, in
1939, the same Justice Laurel, who had penned it, cited
Alejandrino vs. Quezon as a binding authority on the
separation of powers. (Planas vs. Gil, 67 Phil., 62.) It must
be stressed that, in the Angara controversy, no
_______________
1 e. g., jeopardy in prosecutions; two-thirds vote to declare law

unconstitutional, etc.
203
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 203

Vera vs. Avelino
legislative body or person was a litigant before the court,

and whatever obiter dicta, or general expressions, may
therein be found can not change the ultimate circumstance
that no directive was issued against 2
a branch of the
Legislature or any member thereof. This Court, in that
case, did not require the National Assembly or any
assemblyman to do any particular act. It only found it "has
jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission." (Supra, 63
Phil., 161.)
That this court in the Angara litigation made
declarations, nullifying a resolution of the National
Assembly, is not decisive. In proper cases this court may
annul any Legislative enactment that fails to observe the
constitutional limitations. That is a power conceded to the
judicature since Chief Justice Marshall penned Marbury
vs. Madison in 1803. Its foundation is explained by Justice
Sutherland in the Minimum Wage Case (261 U. S., 544).
Said the Court:
"* * * The Constitution, by its own terms, is the supreme law of

the land, emanating from the people, the repository of ultimate
sovereignty under our form of government. A congressional
statute, on the other hand, is the act of an agency of this
sovereign authority, and if it conflicts with the Constitution, must
fall; for that which is not supreme must yield to that which is. To
hold it invalid (if it be invalid) is a plain exercise of the judicial
power,—that power vested in courts to enable them to administer
justice according to law. From the authority to ascertain and
determine the law in a given case there necessarily results, in
case of conflict, the duty to declare and enforce the rule of the
supreme law and reject that of an inferior act of legislation which,
transcending the Constitution, is of no effect, and binding on no
one. This is not the exercise of a substantive power to review and
nullify acts of Congress, for no such substantive power exists. It is
simply a necessary concomitant of the power to hear and dispose
of a case or controversy properly before the court, to the
determination of which must be brought the test and measure of
the law."
And the power is now expressly recognized by our Organic

Act. (See sections 2 and 10, Article VIII.)
But we must emphasize. the power is to be exercised in
proper cases, with the appropriate parties.
________________
2 Legislative members of the Commission were not sued as

assemblymen.
204

Vera vs. Avelino
"It must be conceded that the acts of the Chief Executive

performed within the limits of his jurisdiction are his official acts
and courts will neither direct nor restrain executive action in such
cases. The rule is non-interference. But from this legal premise, it
does not necessarily follow that we are precluded from making an
inquiry into the validity or constitutionality of his acts when these
are properly challenged in an appropriate legal proceeding. * * *
In the present case, the President is not a party to the proceeding.
He is neither compelled nor restrained to act in a particular way.
* * * This court, therefore, has jurisdiction over the instant
proceedings and will accordingly proceed to determine the merits
of the present controversy." (Planas vs. Gil., 67 Phil., 62, 73, 74,
76.) (Italics ours.) (See also Lopez vs. De los Reyes, 55 Phil., 170.)
More about the Angara precedent: The defendant there

was only the Electoral Commission which was "not a
separate department of the Government" (Vol. 63, p. 160),
and exercised powers "judicial in nature." (Supra, p. 184.)
Hence, against our authority, there was no objection based
on the independence and separation of the three co-equal
departments of Government. Besides, this court said no
more than that, there being a conflict of jurisdiction
between two constitutional bodies, it could not decline to
take cognizance of the controversy to determine the
"character, scope and extent" of their respective
constitutional spheres of action. Here, there is actually no
antagonism between the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate
and the Senate itself, for it is not suggested that the former
has adopted a rule contradicting the Pendatun Resolution.
Consequently, there is no occasion for our intervention.
Such conflict of jurisdiction, plus the participation of the
Senate Electoral Tribunal are essential ingredients to
make the facts of this case fit the mold of the Angara
doctrine.
Now, under the principles enunciated in the Alejandrino
case, may this petition be entertained? The answer must
naturally be in the negative. 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
205
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 205

Vera vs. Avelino
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.
Adherence to established principle should generally be
our guiding criterion, if we are to escape the criticism
vioced once by Bryce in American Commonwealth thus:
"The Supreme Court has changed its color i. e., its temper and
tendencies, from time to time according to the political proclivities
of the men who composed it * * *. Their action flowed naturally
from the habits of thought they had formed before their accession
to the bench and from the sympathy they could not but feel for the
doctrine on whose behalf they had contended." (The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, May, 1936, p.
50.)
Needless to add, any order we may issue in this case

should, according to the rules, be enf orceable by contempt
proceedings. If the respondents should disobey our order,
can we punish them for contempt? If we do, are we not
thereby destroying the independence, and the equal
importance to which legislative bodies are entitled under
the Constitution?
Let us not be overly influenced by the plea that for every
wrong there is a remedy, and that the judiciary should
stand ready to afford relief. There are undoubtedly many
wrongs the judicature may not correct, for instance, those
involving political questions. Numerous decisions are
quoted and summarized under this heading in 16 Corpus
Juris Secundum, section 145.
Let us likewise disabuse our minds from the notion that
the judiciary is the repository of remedies for all political or
social ills. We should not forget that the Constitution has
judiciously allocated the powers of government to three
distinct and separate compartments; and that judicial
interpretation has tended to the preservation of the in-
206
Vera vs. Avelino
dependence of the three, and a zealous regard of the

prerogatives of each, knowing full well that one is not the
guardian of the others and that, for official wrong-doing,
each may be brought to account, either by impeachment,
trial or by the ballot box.
The extreme case has been described wherein a
legislative chamber, without any reason whatsoever,
decrees by resolution the incarceration, for years, of a
citizen. And the rhetorical question is confidently
formulated. Will this man be denied relief by the courts?
Of course not: He may successfully apply for habeas
corpus, alleging the nullity of the resolution and claiming
for release. But then, the defendant shall be the officer or
person, holding him in custody, and the question therein
will be the validity or invalidity of resolution. That was
done in Lopez vs. De los Reyes, supra. (See also Kilbourn
vs. Thompson, 103 U.' S. 168; 26 Law. ed., 377, p. 391.)
Courts will interfere, because the question is not a political
one, the "liberty of citizen" being involved (Kilbourn vs.
Thompson, supra) and the act will be clearly beyond the
bounds of the legislative power, amounting to usurpation of
the privileges of the courts, the usurpation being clear,
palpable and oppressive and the infringement of the
Constitution truly real. (See 16 C. J. S., p. 44.)
Nevertheless, suppose for the moment that we have
jurisdiction:
B. PROHIBITION DOES NOT LIE
Petitioners pray for a writ of prohibition. Under the law,

prohibition refers only to proceedings of any tribunal,
corporation, board, or person, exercising functions judicial
or ministerial. (Rule 67, section 2, Rules of Court.) As the
respondents do not exercise such kind of functions, theirs
being legislative, it is clear the dispute falls beyond the
scope of such special remedy.
C SENATE HAS NOT EXCEEDED POWERS
Again let us suppose the question lies within the limits of

prohibition and of our jurisdiction.
207
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 207

Vera vs. Avelino
Before the organization of the Cammonwealth and the
promulgation of the Constitution, each House of the
Philippine Legislature exercised the power to defer oath-
taking of any member against whom a protest had been
lodged, whenever in its discretion such suspension was
necessary, before the final decision of the contest. The cases
of Senator Fuentebella and Representative Rafols are
known instances of such suspension. The discussions in the
Constitutional Convention showed that instead of
transferring to the Electoral Commission all the powers of
the House or Senate as "the sole judge of the election,
returns, and qualifications of the members of the National
Assembly," it was given only jurisdiction over "all contests"
relating to the election, etc. (Aruego, The Framing of the
Philippine Constitution, Vol. I, p. 271.) The proceedings in
the Constitutional Convention on this subject are
illuminating:
"It became gradually apparent in the course of the debates that

the Convention was evenly divided on the proposition of creating
the Electoral Commission with the membership and powers set
forth in the draft. It was growing evident, too, that the opposition
to the Electoral Commission was due to the rather inclusive
power of that body to be the judge not only of cases contesting the
election of the members of the National Assembly, but also of
their elections, returns, and qualifications.
"Many of the delegates wanted to be definitely informed of the
scope of the powers of the Electoral Commission as defined in the
first draft before determining their final decision; for if the draft
meant to confer upon the Electoral Commission the inclusive
power to pass upon the elections, returns, and qualifications—
contested or not—of the members of the National Assembly, they
were more inclined to vote against the Electoral Commission. In
an attempt to seek this clarification, the following interpellations
took place:
* * * * * *
" 'Delegate Labrador.—Does not the gentleman from Capiz
believe that unless this power is granted to the assembly, the
assembly on its own motion does not have the right to contest the
election and qualification of its members?
"'Delegate Roxas.—I have no doubt that the gentleman is right.
// this draft is retained, as it is, even if two-thirds of the assembly
believe that a member has not the qualifications provided by law,
they cannot remove him from that reason.'
208

Vera, vs. Avelino
* * * * * * *
"In the course of the heated debates, with the growing
restlessness on the part of the Convention, President Recto
suspended the session in order to find out if it was possible to
arrive at a compromise plan to meet the objection.
"When the session was resumed, a compromise plan was
submitted in the form of an amendment presented by Delegates
Francisco, Ventura, Lim, Vinzons, Rafols, Mumar, and others,
limiting the power of the Electoral Commission to the judging of
all cases contesting the elections, returns, and qualificatons of the
members of the National Assembly. Explaining' the difference
between the amendment thus proposed and the provision of the
draft, Delegate Roxas, upon the request of President Recto, said:
" 'The difference, Mr. President, consists only in obviating the
objection pointed out by various delegates to the effect that the
first clause of the draft which states "The election, returns, and
qualifications of the members of the National Assembly" seems to
give to the Electoral Commission the power to determine also the
election of the members who have not been protested. And in
order to obviate that difficulty, we believe that the amendment is
right in that sense * * * that is, if we amend the draft so that it
should read as follows: "All cases contesting the election, etc.", so
that the judges of the Electoral Commission will limit themselves
only to cases in which there has been a protest against the
returns.'
"The limitation to the powers of the Electoral Commission
proposed in the compromise amendment did much to win in favor
of the Electoral Commission many of its opponents; so that when
the amendment presented by Delegate Labrador and others to
retain in the Constitution the power of the lawmaking body to be
the sole judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its
members was put to a nominal vote, it was defeated by 98
negative votes against 56 affirmative votes.
"With the defeat of the Labrador amendment, the provision of
the draft creating the Electoral Commission, as modified by the
compromise amendment, was consequently approved.
" 'All cases contesting the elections, returns and qualifications
of the members of the National Assembly shall be judged by an
electoral commission, composed of three members elected by the
party having the largest number of votes in the National
Assembly, three elected by the members of the party having the
second largest number of votes, and three justices of the Supreme
Court designated by the Chief Justice, the Commission to be
presided over by one of said justices.'
209
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 209

Vera vs. Avelino
"In the special committee on style, the provision was amended so

that the Chairman of the Commission should be the senior Justice
in the Commission, and so that the Commission was to be the sole
judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of the members of
the National Assembly. As it was then amended, the provision
read:
"There shall be an Electoral Commission composed of three Justices of

the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, and of six Members
chosen by the National Assembly, three of whom shall be nominated by
the party having the largest number of votes, and three by the party
having the second largest number of votes therein. The senior Justice in
the Commission shall be its Chairman. The Electoral Commission shall
be the sole judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of the Members
of the National Assembly.'
"The report of the special committee on style on the power of

the Commission was opposed on the floor of the Convention by
Delegate Confesor, who inisisted that the Electoral Commission
should limit itself to judging only of all contests relating to the
elections, returns, and qualifications of the members of the
National Assembly. The draft was amended accordingly by the
Convention.
"As it was finally adopted by the Convention, the provision
read:
"'There shall be an Electoral Commission * * *. The Electoral
Commission shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of the Members of the
National Assembly.'" (Aruego, The Framing of the Philippine
Constitution, Vol. I, pp. 267, 269, 270, 271 and 272.)
Delegate Roxas rightly opined that "if this draft is re

tained" the Assembly would have no power over election
and qualifications of its members; because all the powers
are by the draft vested in the Commission.
The Convention, however, bent on circumscribing the
latter's authority to "contests" relating to the election, etc.
altered the draft. The Convention did not intend to give it
all the functions of the Assembly on the subject of election
and qualifications of its members. The distinction is not
without a difference. "As used in constitutional provisions",
election contest "relates only to statutory contests in which
the contestant seeks not only to oust the intruder, but also
to have himself inducted into the office." (Laurel on
Elections, Second Edition, p. 250; 20 C. J,, 58.)
210

Vera vs. Avelino
One concrete example will serve to illustrate the remaining

power in either House of Congress: A man is elected by a
congressional district who had previously served ten years
in Bilibid Prison for estafa. As he had no opponent, no
protest is filed. And the Electoral Tribunal has no
jurisdiction, because there is no election contest. (20 C. J.,
58, supra.) When informed of the fact, may not the House,
motu proprio postpone his induction? May not the 1
House
suspend, investigate and thereafter exclude him? It must
be observed that when a member of the House raises a
question as to the qualifications of another, an "election
contest" does not thereby ensue, because the former does
not seek to be substituted for the latter.
So that, if not all the powers regarding the election,
returns, and qualifications of members was withdrawn by
the Constitution f rom the Congress; and if, as admitted by
petitioners themselves at the oral argument, the power to
defer the oath-taking, until the contest is adjudged, does
not belong to the corresponding Electoral Tribunal, then it
must be held that the House or Senate still retains such
authority, for it has not been transferred to, nor assumed
by, the Electoral Tribunal. And this result flows, whether
we believe that such power (to delay induction) stemmed
from the (former) privilege of either House to be the judge
of the election, returns, and qualifications of the members
thereof, or whether we hold it to be inherent to every
legislative body as a measure of self-preservation.
It is customary that when a number of persons come
together to form a legislative body, "* * * the first
organization must be temporary, and if the law does not
designate the person who shall preside over such
temporary organization, the persons assembled and
claiming to be members may select one of their number for
that purpose. The next step is to ascertain in some
convenient way the names of the
_______________
1 Not qualified as elector—not qualified as congressman (Constitution,

Article VI, section 7, in relation with section 94[a] Election Code).
211
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 211

Vera vs. Avelino
person who are, by reason of holding the proper

credentials, prima facie entitled to seats, and therefore
entitled to take part in the permanent organization of the
body. In the absence of any statutory or other regulation
upon this subject, a committee on credentials is usually
appointed, to whom all credentials are referred, and who
report to the body a roll of the names of those who are
shown by such credentials to be entitled to seats. * * *"
(Laurel on Elections, Second Edition, pp. 356, 357, quoting
McCrary on Elections.)
Therefore, independently of constitutional or statutory
grant, the Senate has, under parliamentary practice, the
power to inquire into the credentials of any member and
the latter's right to participate in its deliberations. As we
have seen, the assignment by the Constitution to the
Electoral Tribunal does not actually negative that power—
provided the Senate does not cross the boundary line,
deciding an election contest against that member. Which
the respondents at the bar never attempted to do.
Precisely, their resolution recognized, and did not impair,
the jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal to decide the
contest. To test whether the resolution trenched on the
territory of the last named agency. let us ask the question:
May the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate order that Body
to def er the admission of any member whose election has
been contested? Obviously not. Then it must be conceded
that the passage of the disputed resolution meant no
invasion of the former's realm.
At this juncture the error will be shown of the
contention that the Senate has not this privilege "as a
residuary power". Such contention is premised on the
proposition that the Houses of the Philippine Congress
possess only such powers as are expressly or impliedly
granted by the Constitution. And an American decision is
quoted on the powers of the United States Congress. The
mistake is due to the failure to differentiate between the
nature of legislative power under the Constitution of the
United States, and
212

Vera vs. Avelino
legislative power under the State Constitutions and the

Constitution of the Commonwealth (now the Republic). It
must be observed that the Constitution of the United
States contains only a grant or delegation of legislative
powers to the Federal Government, whereas, the other
Constitutions, like the Constitution of the Commonwealth
(now the Republic), are limits upon the plenary powers of
legislation of the Government. The legislative power of the
United States Congress is confined to the subjects on which
it is permitted to act by the Federal Constitution. (Dorr vs.
United States, 195 U. S., 140; Martin vs. Hunter, 1 Wheat.,
326; McCullock vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat, 405; United States
vs. Cruikshank, 92 U. S., 551.) The legislative power of the
Philippine Congress is plenary, subject only to such
limitations, as are found in the Republic's Constitution.- So
that any power, deemed to be legislative by usage and
tradition, is necessarily possessed by the Philippine
Congress, unless the Organic Act has lodged it elsewhere.
Another line of approach. The Senate, as a branch of the
legislative department, had the constitutional power to
adopt rules for its proceedings (section 10 [3], Article VI of
the Constitution), and by legislative practice it is conceded
the power to promulgate such orders as may be necessary
1
to maintain its prestige and to preserve its dignity. We are
advised by the respondents that, after weighing the
propriety or impropriety of the step, the Senate, in the
exercise of its authority and discretion and of its inherent
power of self-preservation, resolved to defer the
administration of oath and the sitting of the petitioners
pending determination of the contest. It is not clear that
the measure had no reasonable connection with the ends in
view, and neither does it palpably transcend the powers of
a public deliberative body. On the contrary, there are
reasons to believe it was prompted by the dictates of
ordinary caution, or of public policy. For, if, as reported by
the corresponding constitutional agency, concededly well-
posted on the mat-
________________
1 See Lopez vs. De los Reyes, supra.
213
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 213

Vera vs. Avelino
ter by reason of its official duties, the elections held in the

Provinces of Pampanga, Bulacan, Tarlac, and Nueva Ecija
were so tainted with acts of violence and intimidation, that
the result was not the legitimate expression of the voters'
choice, the Senate made no grievous mistake in foreseeing
the probability that, upon proof of such widespread
lawlessness, the Electoral Tribunal would annull the
returns in that region (see Gardiner vs. Romulo, 26 Phil.,
521; Laurel, Elections [2d ed.], p. 488 et seq.), and declare
herein petitioners not entitled to seats in the Senate.
Consequently, to avoid the undesirable results flowing from
the participation of disqualified members in its
deliberations, it was prudent for it to defer the sitting of
the respondents. True, they may have no direct connection
with the acts of intimidation; yet the votes may be annulled
just the same, and if that happens, petitioners would not be
among the sixteen senators elected. Nor was it far-fetched
for the Senate to consider that "in order to maintain alive
the respect for democratic institutions among our people,
no man or group of men (should) be permitted to profit
from the results of an election held under coercion, in
violation of law and contrary to the principle of freedom of
choice which should underlie all elections under the
Constitution." (Exhibit A of petitioners' complaint.)
a. Justices in the Electoral Tribunals.

During our deliberations, it was remarked that several
justices subscribing the majority opinion, belong to the
electoral tribunals wherein protests connected with the
Central Luzon polls await investigation. Mulling over this,
we experience no qualmish feelings about the coincidence.
Their designation to the electoral tribunals deducted not a
whit from their functions as members of this Supreme
Court, and did not disqualify them in this litigation. Nor
will their deliverances hereat on a given question operate
to prevent them from voting in the electoral forum on iden-
214

Vera vs. Avelino
tical questions; because the Constitution, establishing no

incompatibility between the two roles, naturally did not
contemplate, nor want, justices opining one way here, and
thereafter holding otherwise, pari materia, in the electoral
tribunals, or vice-versa.
Anyhow, there should be no diversity of thought in a
democratic country, at least, on the legal effects of the
alleged rampant lawlessness, root and basis of the
Pendatun Resolution.
However, it must be observed and emphasized, herein is
no definite pronouncement that terrorism and violence
actually prevailed in the district to such extent that the
result was not the expression of the free will of the
electorate. Such issue was not tendered in these
proceedings. It hinges upon proof to be produced by
protestants and protestees at the hearing of the respective
contests.
b. Doubt and presumption.

After all is said or written, the most that may be conceded
to the industry of petitioners' counsel is that the Senate's
power, or lack of power, to approve the resolution is not
entirely clear. We should, therefore, indulge the
presumption that official duty has been performed
regularly, (Rule 123, section 69, Rules of Court), and in the
right manner:
"It is a general principle to presume that public officers act

correctly until the contrary is shown. United States vs. Weed, 5
Wall., 62.
"It will be presumed, unless the contrary be shown, that a
public officer acted in accordance with the law and his
instructions. Moral y Gonzales vs. Ross (Gonzales vs. Ross), 120
U. S., 605; 7 Sup. Ct. Rep., 705.
"Officers charged with the performance of a public duty are
presumed to perform it correctly. Quinlan vs. Greene County, 205
U. S., 410; 27 Sup. Ct. Rep., 505. (United States Supreme Court
Reports Digest, Vol. 5, p. 3188.)
"It is presumed that the legislature has acted within its
constitutional powers." (See cases cited at p. 257, 16 C. J. S., note
1.)
215
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 194 215

Vera vs. Avelino
And should there be further doubt, by all the maxins of

prudence, left alone comity, we should heed the off-limits
sign at the Congressional Hall, and check the impulse to
rush in to set matters aright—firm in the belief that if a
political fraud has been accomplished, as petitioners aver,
the sovereign people, ultimately the offended party, will
render the fitting verdict—at the polling precincts.
c. Membership in the Constitutional Convention.

The theory has been proposed—modesty aside—that the
dissenting members of this Court who were delegates to
the Constitutional Convention and were "co-authors of the
Constitution" "are in a better position to interpret" that
same Constitution in this particular litigation.
There is no doubt that their properly recorded
utterances during the debates and proceedings of the
Convention deserve weight, like those of any other delegate
therein. Note, however, that the proceedings of the
Convention "are less conclusive of the proper construction
of the instrument than are legislative proceedings of the
proper construction of a statute; since in the latter case it is
the intent of the legislature we seek, while in the former we
are endeavoring to arrive at the intent of the people through
the discussions and deliberations of their representatives."
(Willoughby on the Constitution, Vol. I, pp. 54, 55.)
Their writings (of the delegates) commenting or
explaining that instrument, published shortly thereafter,
may, like those of Hamilton, Madison and Jay in The
Federalist—here in the Philippines, the book of Delegate
Aruego, supra, and of others—have persuasive force. (Op.
cit., p. 55.)
But their personal opinion on the matter at issue
expressed during our deliberations stand on a different
footing: If based on a "fact" known to them, but not duly
established or judicially cognizable, it is immaterial, and
their brethren are not expected to take their word for it, to
the prejudice of the party adversely affected, who had no
chance of rebuttal. If on a matter of legal hermeneutics,
their
216

Vera vs. Avelino
conclusions may not, simply on account of membership in

the Convention, be a shade better, in the eyes of the law.
There is the word "deference" to be sure. But deference is a
compliment spontaneously to be paid—never a tribute to be
demanded.
And if we should (without intending any disparagement)
compare the Constitution's enactment to a drama on the
stage or in actual life, we would realize that intelligent
spectators or readers often know as much, if not more,
about the real meaning, effects or tendencies of the event,
or incidents thereof, as some of the actors themselves, who
sometimes become so absorbed in fulfilling their emotional
roles that they fail to watch the other scenes or to meditate
on the larger aspects of the whole performance, or what is
worse, become so infatuated with their lines as to construe
the entire story according to their prejudices or
frustrations. Perspective and disinterestedness help
certainly a lot in examining actions and occurrences.
Come to think of it, under the theory thus proposed,
Marshall and Holmes (names venerated by those who have
devoted a sizable portion of their professional lives to
analyzing or solving constitutional problems and
developments) were not so authoritative after all in
expounding the United States Constitution—because they
were not members of the Federal Convention that framed
it!
D. ALLEGED DUTY OF RESPONDENTS
Quoting section 12 of Commonwealth Act No. 725, counsel

for petitioners assert that it was respondents' duty, legally
inescapable, to permit petitioners to assume office and take
part in the current regular session. The section reads
partly:
"The candidates for Member of the House of Representatives and

those for Senator who have been proclaimed elected by the
respective Board of Canvassers and the Commission on Elections
shall assume office and shall hold regular session for the year
nineteen hundred and forty-six on May twenty-five, nineteen
hundred and forty-six. * * *" (Section 12, Commonwealth Act No.
725.)
217
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 217

Vera vs. Avelino
We have carefully considered the argument. We opine that,

as contended by the Solicitor-General, this provision is
addressed to the individual member of Congress, imposing
on him the obligation to come to Manila, and join his
colleagues in regular session. However, it does not imply
that if, for any reason, he is disqualified, the House is
powerless to postpone his admission. Suppose that after
the elections a member is finally convicted of treason. May
not the House refuse use him outright admission, pending
an investigation (by it or the Electoral Tribunal as the case
may be) as to his privilege to sit there? Granting the right
to admission as the counterpart of the duty to assume office
by virtue of said section 12; we must nevertheless allow
that such right would not be peremptory whenever it
contacts other rights of equal or superior force. To
illustrate: if the law provided that all children, seven years
or more "shall go to school", it can not reasonably be
inferred that school authorities are bound to accept every
seven-year boy, even if he refuses to pay fees, or to present
the certificates required by school regulations.
Furthermore, it would not be erroneous to maintain that
any right spelled out of section 12 must logically be limited
to those candidates whose proclamation is clear,
unconditional and unclouded, and that such standard is not
met by the petitioners, because in the very document
attesting to their election one member of the Commission
on Elections demurred to the non-exclusion of the votes in
Central Luzon, calling attention to the reported reign of
terror and violence in that region, and virtually objecting to
the certification of herein petitioners. To be sure, it was the
beclouded condition of petitioners' credential (certificate of
canvass) that partly prompted the Senate to enact the
precautionary measure herein complained of. And finding
no phrase or sentence in the Constitution expressly or
impliedly outlawing the step taken by that legislative body,
we should be, and we are, reluctant to intervene.
Indeed, had the Senate been officially informed that the
inclusion of petitioners' name in the Commission's certif-
218

Vera vs. Avelino
icate had been made at the point of a gangster's automatic,

none will deny the appositeness of the postponement. of
their induction, pending an inquiry by the corresponding
authorities. Yet the difference between such situation and
the instant litigation is one of degree, broad and wide
perhaps, but not altering the dominant legal principle.
In answer to the suggestions as to abuse of the power it
should be stated that the mere possibility of abuse is no
conclusive argument against the existence of the power, for
the simple reason that every official authority is
susceptible of misuse. And everybody knows that when any
power is wrongfully used, the Government and the people
will discover the methods to curb it.
Perhaps it is necessary to explain that this decision goes
no f urther than to recognize the existence of Congressional
power. It is settled that the point whether such power has
been wisely or correctly exercised, is usually beyond the
ken of judicial determination.
E. PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES
One final consideration.

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 to words 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, f or refusing using 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 reso-
219
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 219

Vera vs. Avelino
lution 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
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.) (Italics
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 Pendatun 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. No costs.
Moran, C. J., Parás, Pablo, and Padilla, JJ., concur.
220

Vera vs. Avelino
HILADO, J., concurring:
I concur.
Petitioners, alleging that they have been elected
Senators in the last national elections, have filed this
proceeding against respondents who, according to the
complaint, have been likewise elected Senators in the same
elections. In paragraph III of the complaint it is alleged
that respondent Hon. Jose A. Avelino is joined in this
proceeding as member and President of the Senate. Two
kinds of remedies are sought by petitioners, one ancillary
and the other principal. The ancillary they would have
consist in a preliminary injunction addressed to
"respondents, their officials, employees, agents and other
persons acting under them, ordering them", until the order
is remanded by the court, "to desist and to abstain from
carrying out" the so-called Pendatun Resolution
complained of. (Exhibit A attached to complaint.) The
principal remedy, if the suit 1s to prosper, would be as
follows: a judicial declaration that the said resolution is
entirely null and void, a definite order of this court
prohibiting respondents, and each of them, from preventing
petitioners from "continuing in their seats in the Senate of
the Philippines and freely exercising their office as
Senators, and likewise prohibiting them from adopting any
other ulterior procedure to execute the said resolution."
1. Has this court power to issue the writ of preliminary
injunction sought by petitioners under the facts alleged in
their complaint?
The power of this court to issue auxiliary writs and
process is defined in, and conferred by, section 19 of Act No.
136, as follows:
"SEC. 19. Power to issue all necessary auxiliary writs.—The

Supreme Court shall have power to issue writs of certiorari and
all other auxiliary writs and process necessary to the complete
exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction."
Under this provision, such auxiliary writ or process as the

writ of preliminary injunction prayed for by petitioners
221
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 221

Vera vs. Avelino
in the instant case, is only issuable by this court, firstly,

where this court is engaged in the exercise of its original
(or appellate) jurisdiction in a main case, and secondly,
when such writ or process is necessary to a complete
exercise of that jurisdiction. This principle is ingrained in
and underlies the pertinent provisions of the present Rules
of Court (Rule 60). Indeed, it is elementary that an
independent action cannot be maintained merely to procure
a preliminary injunction as its sole objective. (Panay
Municipal Cadastre vs. Garduño and Soncuya, 55 Phil.,
574.)
Besides, there are other grounds for holding that this
court lacks jurisdiction to issue the writ of preliminary
injunction prayed for by petitioners. It is clear that the
rights sought to be exercised or protected by petitioners
through this proceeding are political rights and the
questions raised are political questions, and it is well
settled that the equitable remedy of injunction is not
available for such a purpose. The principle has also been
incorporated in the rule that a court of chancery will not
entertain a suit calling for a judgment upon a political
question, and of course this court has been resorted to in
the instant case as a court of equity in so far as injunctive
relief is being sought. In the case of Fletcher vs. Tuttle (151
111., 41; 25 L. R. A., 143, 146), the definitions of a political
right by Anderson and Bouvier are quoted. Anderson
defines a political right as a "right exercisable in the
administration of government" (Anderson Law Dictionary,
905). And Bouvier says: "Political rights consist in the
power to participate, directly or indirectly, in the
establishment or management of the government." (2
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 597.)
*******
-: * * The prayer of the bill is that, upon the hearing of the
cause, both acts be declared unconstitutional and void, and held
to be of no effect; and that a writ of injunction issue to Walter C.
Tuttle, county clerk ;of Vermilion country, restraining him from
issuing, or causing to be posted, notices of election calling an
election for the house of representatives for the eighteenth
senatorial district; and that such injunction be made perpetual;
and that the
222

Vera vs. Avelino
court grant to the petitioner and to the people all such other and
further relief as the case demands.
"From the foregoing statement of these two bills, it seems to be
perfectly plain that the entire scope and object of both is the
assertion and protection of political, as contradistinguished from
civil, personal or property rights. In both the complainant is a
legal voter, and a candidate for a particular elective office; and by
his bill he is seeking the protection and enforcement of his right to
cast his own ballot in a legal and effective manner, and also his
right to be such candidate, to have the election called and held
under the provisions of a valid law, and to have his name printed
upon the ballots to be used at such election, so that he may be
voted for in a legal manner. The rights thus asserted are all
purely political; nor, so far as this question is concerned, is the
matter aided in the least by the attempt made by the complainant
in each bill to litigate on behalf of other voters or of the people of
the state generally. The claims thus attempted to be set up are all
of the same nature, and are none the less political.
"As defined by Anderson, a civil right is 'a right accorded to
every member of a district community, or nation,' while a political
right is a 'right exercisable in the administration of government.'
Anderson, Law Dictionary, 995. Says Bouvier: 'Political rights
consist in the power to participate, directly or indirectly, in the
establishment or management of the government. These political
rights are fixed by the constitution. Every citizen has the right of
voting for public officers, and of being elected. These are the
political rights which the humblest citizen possesses. Civil rights
are those which have no relation to the establishment, support, or
management of the government. They consist in the power of
acquiring and enjoying property, or exercising the paternal or
marital powers, and the like. It will be observed that every one,
unless deprived of them by sentence of civil death, is in the
enjoyment of the civil rights, which is not the case with political
rights; for an alien, for example, has no political, although in full
enjoyment of the civil rights.' (2 Bouvier Law Dict., 597.)
"* * * * A preliminary injunction having been awarded, it was
disregarded by the city officers, who proceeded, notwithstanding,
to canvass the vote and declare the result. Various of the city
officers and their advisers were attached and fined for contempt,
and, on appeal to this court from the judgment for contempt, it
was held that the matter presented by the bill was a matter over
which a court of chancery had no jurisdiction, and that the
injunction was void, so
223
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 223

Vera vs. Avelino
that its violation was not an act which subjected the violators to
proceedings for contempt.
"* * * In Georgia vs. Stanton (73 U. S., 6 Wall., 50; 18 Law. ed.,
721), a bill was filed by the state of Georgia against the secretary
of war and other officers representing the executive authority of
the United States, to restrain them in the execution of the acts of
congress known as the 'Reconstruction Acts,' on the ground that
the enforcement of those acts would annul and totally abolish the
existing state government of the state, and establish another and
different one in its place, and would, in effect, overthrow and
destroy the corporate existence of the state, by depriving it of all
means and instrumentalities whereby its existence might and
otherwise would be maintained; and it was held that the bill
called for a judgment upon a political question, and that it would
not therefore be entertained by a court of chancery; and it was
further held that the character of the bill was not changed by the
fact that, in setting forth the political rights sought to be
protected, it averred that the state had real and personal
property, such, for example, as public buildings, etc., of the
enjoyment of which, by the destruction of its corporate existence,
the state would be deprived, such averment not being the
substantial ground of the relief sought." (Fletcher vs. Tuttle, 151
111., 41; 25 L. R. A., 143, 145-147; (italics supplied.)
"SECTION 381. 3. Political Questions.—a. In General.—It is a
wellsettled doctrine 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 on the courts by express
constitutional or statutory provisions? It is not So easy, however,
to define the phrase 'political question,' nor to determine what
matters fall within its scope. It is frequently used to designate all
questions that lie outside the scope of the judicial power. More
properly, however, it means 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. Among the questions that have been held to be
political, and therefore beyond the province of the judiciary to
decide, are: Questions relating to the existence or legality of the
government under which the court is acting; what persons or
organizations constitute the lawful government of a state of the
Union, or of a foreign country; * * * the canvass of an election."
(12 C. J., 878, 879; italics supplied.)
"SECTION 20. 4. Only Civil Rights Protected.—The subject
matter of equitable jurisdiction being civil property and the
maintenance of civil rights, injunction will issue only in cases
where complainant's civil rights have been invaded. Injunctions
do not issue to prevent
224

Vera vs. Avelino
equity have no jurisdiction over matters or questions of a political

nature unless civil property rights are involved and will not
interfere to enforce or protect purely political rights, * * * " (32 C.
J., 41; italics supplied.)
But petitioners seem to proceed upon the theory that there

is a main case here to which the preliminary injunction
would be merely auxiliary—one of prohibition, presumably
under Rule 67, sections 2, 4, and 7. Rule 67, section 2,
omitting impertinent parts, says:
"SEC. 2. Petition for prohibition.—When the proceedings of any

tribunal, corporation, board, or person, whether exercising
functions judicial or ministerial * * *."
To begin with, respondents herein cannot in any rational

sense be said to constitute a "tribunal, corporation, board,
or person * * * exercising functions judicial or ministerial."
To be sure, the functions of the Senate and of its members
in the premises are not judicial. It is no less certain, in my
opinion, that they are not ministerial. Indeed, they are not
only legislative but discretionary in the highest sense, as
more at length demonstrated hereafter.
It is insisted, however, that the provisions of section 12
of Commonwealth Act No. 725 imposed upon respondents
the ministerial duty of letting petitioners assume office and
participate in the regular session for the year 1946 on May
25, 1946. But, as in my opinion correctly contended by the
Solicitor General at the argument, this provision is
addressed to the members of both Houses of Congress who
are to assume office and hold the regular session. Altho to
this, some who opine differently from us, may counter with
the question: What is the use of imposing upon said
members the ministerial duty to assume office and hold the
session if either House or the other members thereof could
prevent them from so doing? In the first place, I would not
say that, considering together, as we should, the report of
the Commission on Elections to the President of the
225
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 225

Vera vs. Avelino
Senate of May 23, 1946 (Exhibit B), and the certificate of

canvass of the same date (Exhibit C), said Commission
"proclaimed elected" those candidates whose election may
be adversely aff ected by the Commission's own express
reservation as to the validity or invalidity of the votes cast
in the Provinces of Pampanga, Bulacan, Tarlac, and Nueva
Ecija, in the same sense that they proclaimed elected those
not so affected—it would seem that the proclamation made
in Exhibit C was based merely upon a numerical canvass or
count of the votes cast, the Commission considering itself
without authority to discount the votes cast in said four
provinces, leaving that question to the Electoral Tribunal f
or the Senate; and it would seem f urther, that within the
meaning and intent of section 12 of Commonwealth Act No.
725 the phrase "candidates * * * proclaimed elected,"
rationally construed, is exclusive of those of whose valid
election the Commission is the first, in effect, to express
very grave doubts. As to these, considering the
Commission's report and certificate of canvass together, the
Commission, in final effect, far from proclaiming them
elected, confesses that it does not really know whether they
have been or not. In the second place, I do not admit that
any such ministerial duty is imposed upon the members of
Congress in the sense that its fulfillment may be compelled
by mandamus issuing from the judiciary. In the third place,
if we were to concede that the intention of the law is as
petitioners contend it to be, that is, that it imposes upon
both Houses of Congress and upon the members thereof
who legitimately act for them, the ministerial duty of
letting even those members, as to whom there exist
grounds for suspension, assume office and participate in
the Houses' deliberations, I am of the considered opinion
that the provision would be null and void for the simple
reason that it would be destructive of, and repugnant to,
the inherent power of both Houses to suspend members f or
reasons of self-preservation or decorum. I say null and void,
because the principle underlying said inherent power
226

Vera vs. Avelino
is ingrained in the very genius of a republican and

democratic government, such as ours, which has been
patterned after that of the United States, and therefore lies
at the very foundation of our constitutional system. It was
admitted at the argument that when both legislative
chambers were the sole judges of the election, returns and
qualifications of their members, each chamber possessed
such inherent power of suspension, particularly as against
members whose election was the subject of contest. When
the Commonwealth Constitution transferred to the
Electoral Tribunal for each chamber the jurisdiction as sole
judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and
qualifications of its members, without any provision as to
said power of suspension, the clear inference is that the
same was left intact, to remain where it was inherent. And
certainly the framers should not be presumed. to have
silently intended to abrogate and take away a power so
vital and so essential.
Coming now more fundamentally to the alleged main
case presented by the complaint. As stated at the outset,
the principal remedy pursued by petitioners, if this suit is
to prosper, and therefore the main case which they seem to
allege as justifying the ancillary remedy of preliminary
injunction, would be concerned with a judicial declaration
by this court that the so-called Pendatun Resolution is
entirely null and void, with a definite order of this court
prohibiting respondents, and each of them, from preventing
petitioners "from continuing in their seats in the Senate of
the Philippines and freely exercising their functions as
Senators, and likewise prohibiting them from adopting any
other ulterior procedure to execute the said resolution."
This immediately brings to the fore the vital and serious
question of whether this court has jurisdiction to grant the
remedy thus prayed for by giving final judgment making
the said judicial declaration of nullity and granting the
writ of prohibition definitely prohibiting the respondent
President of the Senate and respondent senators from
executing the above specified acts. Such fundamental prin-
227
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 227
Vera vs. Avelino
ciple as the separation of powers, as well as the exclusive

jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal for the Senate of all
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications
of its members, are involved.
Our Constitution and laws will be scanned and searched
in vain for the slightest hint of an intention to confer upon
the courts, including the Supreme Court, the power to issue
coercive process addressed to, or calculated to control the
action of, either of the other two coordinate departments of
the government—the legislative whose power is vested in
the Congress, consisting of the Senate and the House of
Representatives (Constitution, Article VI, section 1), and
the executive whose power is vested in the President
(Constitution, Article VII, section 1), concerning matters
within the sphere of their respective functions. Besides, if
we had jurisdiction to issue the writ of preliminary
injunction, it must be upon the ground that prima facie the
facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to justify the
writ. In that case, we must have the power to make said
injunction final if upon a trial on the merits we find those
facts proven. (Rule 60, section 10.) But since such a
permanent or perpetual writ would have to be premised
upon the determination that petitioners have been legally
and validly elected, which question is beyond our power to
decide, it is clear that we lack jurisdiction to issue even the
preliminary process. And be it not contended that our
preliminary writ is simply to serve while the contest has
not been decided by the Electoral Tribunal, because under
Act No. 136, section 19, and Rule 60, sections 2 and 3, this
court can issue such a process in aid only of its own
jurisdiction over a main case, and not in aid of the
jurisdiction of another tribunal—and it is unthinkable that
the Supreme Court should be made to serve as a sort of
auxiliary court to the Electoral Tribunal.
2. Has this court jurisdiction of the subject matter of the
alleged main case and, consequently, to grant the alleged
principal remedy?
228

Vera vs. Avelino
The judicial declaration of nullity sought by petitioners,

severed from the writ of prohibition prayed for by them,
would become, if at all, nothing more nor less than a
declaratory relief. Thus divorced from the remedy of
prohibition, it will be a mere abstract pronouncement of an
opinion of this court regarding the constitutionality or
unconstitutionality of the Pendatun Resolution, giving rise
to no substantial relief or positive remedy of any kind. It
will order nothing and will prohibit nothing to be done by
one party or the other. But not even as such declaratory
relief can said judicial declaration be considered under
Rule 66, nor its antecedents, Act No. 3736 and
Commonwealth Act No. 55, since the Pendatun Resolution
is neither a "deed, will, contract or other written
instrument * * * or a statute or ordinance," within the
plain and natural meaning of said rule and said acts, aside
from the reason that pursuant to the same acts the action
for a declaratory judgment should be brought in a Court of
First Instance, without any express provision conferring
original jurisdiction upon this court in such cases, which
provision is necessary before this court can possess such
original jurisdiction (Act No. 136, section 17), and the final
consideration that alike under said Act No. 3736 and Rule
66, section 6, the court has a discretion to refuse to exercise
the power to construe instruments, among other cases,
where the construction is not necessary and proper at the
time under all the circumstances. In the case of Alejandrino
vs. Quezon (46 Phil., 83, 95), this court, referring to a case
of mandamus, said:
"* * * On the one hand, no consideration of policy or convenience

should induce this court to exercise a power that does not belong
to it. On the other hand, no consideration of policy or convenience
should induce this court to surrender a power which it is its duty
to exercise. But certainly mandamus should never issue from this
court where it will not prove to be effectual and beneficial. It
should not be awarded where it will create discord and confusion.
It should not be awarded where mischievous consequences are
likely to follow. Judgment should not be pronounced which might
possibly lead
229
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 229

Vera, vs. Avelino
to unseemly conflicts or which might be disregarded with

impunity. This court should offer no means by a decision for any
possible collision between it as the highest court in the Philippines
and the Philippine Senate as a branch of a coordinate department,
or between the court and the Chief Executive or the Chief
Executive and the Legislature." (Italics supplied.)
It is true that the Alejandrino case was one of mandamus.

But under the principle of separation of powers, the rule is
equally applicable to cases of injunction—in fact, to all
cases where it is desired to have the judiciary directly
control the action of either the executive or legislative
department, or either branch of the latter, concerning
matters within their respective province. Moreover, not
much scrutiny is required to see that what is here pursued
is, in practical effect, an order of this tribunal commanding
the Senate or respondents, who represent it, to allow
petitioners to remain seated in the Senate and freely
exercise their alleged functions and rights as Senators: for
no other is the effect of an order prohibiting the Senate or
said respondents from preventing petitioner's f rom
remaining thus seated and exercising said functions and
rights. Looking thru the f orm to the substance, the petition
is really one of mandamus.
As to the writ of prohibition, the complaint asks this
court, after trial on the merits, to enjoin respondents and
each of them f rom preventing petitioners from continuing
seated in the Senate and freely exercising the f unctions of
Senators, and likewise, from adopting any other ulterior
proceeding in execution of the resolution in question. The
writ thus sought would, if granted, be definite and final in
its effects. (Rule 67, sections 2, 8, and 9.) Such a writ of
prohibition would necessarily be perpetual or permanent in
character and operation, in the same way that a final
injunction under Rule 60, section 10, would permanently
enjoin the act complained of and perpetually restrain the
def endant f rom the commission or continuance of such
act. It would enjoin respondents from preventing
petitioners f rom acting as members of the Senate in
exactly the same
230

Vera vs. Avelino
way and with exactly the same rights and privileges as the
other members whose election is unchallenged and
uncontested, not only temporarily but for the entire term of
the office. But for this court to so order, it would necessarily
have to base its judgment and decree upon the premise
that petitioners have been duly and validly elected as
members of the Senate. This would inevitably involve a
determination of precisely the question, presently contested
bef ore the Electoral Tribunal for the Senate, as sole judge
under the Constitution, of whether or not said petitioners
have been duly and validly elected as Senators. This clearly
would be an unconstitutional invasion of the sphere
allotted by the fundamental law to said Electoral Tribunal
as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns and qualifications of the members of the Senate.
All of which means that this court cannot constitutionally
possess jurisdiction over the alleged main case of
prohibition. This is another way of saying that petitioners
are not entitled to the principal remedy thus sought by
them from this Court.
"SEC. 17 (2). Prima Facie Case.—While it is not a ground for

refusing a preliminary injunction that is not absolutely certain
that complainant has the right to relief, yet to authorize a
temporary injunction, complainant must make out at least a
prima facie showing of a right to the final relief." (32 C. J., 38;
italics supplied.)
"Reason for rule.—The injunction pendente lite can be justified
only upon the theory that it is a necessary incident to the
granting of such final relief as complainants appear to be entitled
to. The right to such final relief must appear; if not, the allowance
of an injunction is erroneous. Amelia Milling Co. vs. Tennessee
Coal, etc., R. Co. (123 Fed., 811, and other cases cited.)" (32 C. J.,
39 under note 76 beginning on p. 38; italics supplied.)
Finally, we come to the great principle of separation of

powers. In the case of Alejandrino vs. Quezon, supra, this
court said (pp. 88, 89):
"There are certain basic principles which lie at the foundation of

the Government of the Philippine Islands, which are familiar to
students of public law. It is here only necessary to recall that
under our system of government, each of the three departments is
distinct
231
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 231

Vera vs. Avelino
and not directly subject to the control of another department. The

power to control is the power to abrogate and the power to
abrogate is the power to usurp. * * *
* * * * * * * *
"* * * Mandamus will not lie against the legislative body, its
members, or its officers, to compel the performance ormance of
duties purely legislative in their character which therefore
pertain to their legislative functions and over which they have
exclusive control. The courts cannot dictate action in this respect
without a gross usurpation of power. So it has been held that
where a member has been expelled by the legislative body, the
courts have no power, irrespective of whether the expulsion was
right or wrong, to issue a mandate to compel his reinstatement."
If mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of

purely legislative duties by the legislature, its members, or
its officers, how can, under the same principle, injunction
or prohibition lie to enjoin or prohibit action of the
Legislature, its members, or its officers, in regard to
matters pertaining to their legislative functions and over
which they have exclusive control? And if the courts are
powerless to compel reinstatement of an expelled member
of the legislative body, it seems inconceivable that under
the same system of government the courts should possess
jurisdiction to prohibit the expulsion in the first instance.
And if the courts cannot interfere to prevent such
expulsion, a fortiori they should lack authority to intervene
to prevent a mere suspension, which is a less drastic
measure against the member. If the expulsion of a member
of the Senate is purely a legislative question, as clearly
decided in the Alejandrino case, the suspension of a
member of the same body must equally be of the same
nature.
In the same case this court, in remarking that some of
the cases cited therein related to the chief executive rather
than to the legislature, said that the same rules which
govern the relations of the courts to the chief executive
likewise govern the relations of the courts to the
legislature.
In Mississippi vs. Johnson and Ord (4 Wall., 475), a bill
was filed praying the United States Supreme Court to
enjoin Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
and
232

Vera vs. Avelino
E. O. C. Ord, General Commanding in the District of

Mississippi and Arkansas f rom executing certain acts of
Congress. The court, per Chief Justice Chase, said that the
single point for consideration was: Can the President be
restrained by injunction from carrying into effect an Act of
Congress alleged to be unconstitutional? It continued:
"The Congress is the Legislative Department of the government;

the President is the' Executive Department. Neither can be
restrained in its action by the Judicial Department; though the
acts of both, when performed, are, in proper cases, subject to its
cognizance.
"The impropriety of such interference will be clearly seen upon
consideration of its possible consequences.
"Suppose the bill filed and the injunction prayed for allowed. If
the President refuse obedience, it is needless to observe that the
court is without power to enforce its process. //, on the other hand,
the President complies with the order of the court and refuses to
execute the acts of the Congress, is it not clear that a collision may
occur between the Executive and Legislative Departments of the
Government? May not the House of Representatives impeach the
President for such refusal? And in that case could this court
interfere in behalf of the President, thus endangered by
compliance with its mandate, and restrain- by injunction the
Senate of the United States from sitting as a court of
impeachment? Would the strange spectacle be offered to the
public wonder of an attempt by this court to arrest proceeedings in
that court?
"These questions answer themselves.
* * * * *
"* * * we are fully satisfied that this court has no jurisdiction of
a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official
duties; and that no such bill ought to be received by us.
"It has been suggested that the bill contains a prayer that, if
the relief sought cannot be had against Andrew Johnson, as
President, it may be granted against Andrew Johnson as a citizen
of Tennessee. But it is plain that relief as against the execution of
an act of Congress by Andrew Johnson, is relief against its
execution by the President. * * *"
In the case of Sutherland vs. Governor of Michigan (29

Mich., 320), Justice Cooley, speaking for the Supreme
Court of Michigan, had the following to say:
"* * * Our government is one whose powers have been carefully

apportioned between three distinct departments, which emanate
233
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 233

Vera vs. Avelino
alike from the people, have their powers alike limited and defined
by the constitution, are of equal dignity, and within their
respective spheres of action equally independent.
* * * * * *
"It is true that neither of the departments can operate in all
respects independently of the others, and that what are called the
checks and balances of government constitute each a restraint
upon the rest. * * * But in each of these cases the action of the
department which controls, modifies, or in any manner influences
that of another, is had strictly within its own sphere, and for that
reason gives no occasion for oonflict, controversy or jealousy. The
Legislature in prescribing rules for the courts, is acting within its
proper province in making laws, while the courts, in declining to
enforce an unconstitutional law, are in like manner acting within
their proper province, because they are only applying that which
is law to the controversies in which they are called upon to give
judgment. It is mainly by means of these checks and balances that
the officers of the several departments are kept within their
jurisdiction, and if they are disregarded in any case, and power is
usurped or abused, the remedy is by impeachment, and not by
another department of the government attempting to correct the
wrong by asserting a superior authority over that which by the
constitution is its equal. "It has long been a maxim in this country
that the Legislature cannot dictate to the courts what their
judgments shall be, or set aside or alter such judgments after they
have been rendered. If it could, constitutional liberty would cease
to exist; and if the Legislature could in like manner override
executive action also, the government would become only a
despotism under popular forms. On the other hand it would be
readily conceded that no court can compel the Legislature to make
or to refrain from making laws, or to meet or adjourn at its
command, or to take any action whatsoever, though the duty to
take it be made ever so clear by the constitution or the laws. In
these cases the exemption of the one department from the control
of the other is not only implied in the framework of government,
but is indispensably necessary if any useful apportionment of
power is to exist.
* * * * * * *
"It is not attempted to be disguised on the part of the relators
that any other course than that which leaves the head of the
executive department to act independently in the discharge of his
duties might possibly lead to unseemly conflicts, if not something
worse, should the courts undertake to enf orce their mandates
and the executive refuse to obey. * * * And while we should
concede, if
234

Vera vs. Avelino
jurisdiction- was plainly vested in us, the inability to enforce our

judgment would be no sufficient reason for failing to pronounce it,
especially against an officer who would be presumed ready and
anxious in all cases to render obedience to the law, yet in a case
where jurisdiction is involved in doubt it is not consistent with the
dignity of the court to pronounce judgments which may be
disregarded with impunity, nor with that of the executive to place
him in position where, in a matter within his own province, he
must act contrary to his judgment, or stand convicted of a
disregard of the laws."
In the same case of Alejandrino vs. Quezon (supra), we find

the following quotation from French vs. Senate of the State
of California (146 Cal., 604):
"Even if we should give these allegations their fullest force in

favor of the pleader, they do not make a case justifying the
interposition of this court. Under our form of government the
judicial department has no power to revise even the most
arbitrary and unfair action of the legislative department, or of
either house thereof, taken in pursuance of the power committed
exclusively to that department by the constitution. * * *"
From the case of Massachusetts vs. Mellon (262 U. S., 447;

67 Law. ed., 1078, 1084), we quote the following passage:
"* * * If an alleged attempt by congressional action to annul and
abolish an existing state government, 'with all its constitutional
powers and privileges,' presents no justiciable issue, as was ruled
in Georgia vs. Stanton, supra, no reason can be suggested why it
should be otherwise where the attempt goes no farther, as it is
here alleged, than to propose to share with the state the field of
state power."
In our case the Senate action through the Pendatun

Resolution and the acts alleged to have been performed
thereunder, are still less transcendental in comparison to
those involved in Georgia vs. Stanton (supra), and
Massachusetts vs. Mellon (supra), as should be obvious to
every one.
In the case of Barry vs. United States ex rel.
Cunningham (279 U. S., 597; 73 Law ed., 867, 872), the
Federal Supreme Court was concerned with a case where
the United States Senate, pending the adjudication of the
validity or nullity of the election of William S. Vare as
Senator, refused acceptance of his credentials consisting of
the
235
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 235

Vera vs. Avelino
returns, upon the face of which he had been elected, and a

certificate from the Governor of the State to that effect, and
refused to administer the oath of office to him, and to
accord the full right to participate in the business of the
Senate. It was held that all this "was a matter within the
discretion of the Senate." This is strikingly similar to the
instant case where the Senate of the Philippines, which I
maintain retained its inherent power of suspension after
the transfer to the Electoral Tribunal for the Senate of its
exclusive jurisdiction to judge contests relating to the
election, returns and qualifications of its members, deemed
it to be necessary or convenient to suspend the
administration of oath to petitioners, their seating in the
Senate and their participation in its deliberations, pending
final decision by said Electoral Tribunal of the contest
concerning their election, which matters were in my
opinion within the discretion of said Senate.
In the case of Massachusetts vs. Mellon (supra), the
Supreme Court of the United States concluded its decision
in these words:
"* * * Looking through forms of words to the substance of their

complaint, it is merely that officials of the executive department
of the government are executing and will execute an act of
Congress asserted to be unconstitutional; and this we are asked to
prevent. To do so would be not to decide a judicial controversy, but
to assume a position of authority over the governmental acts of
another and coequal department—an authority which plainly we
do not possess."
Strikingly similar, our case is one wherein the substance of

the complaint is merely that respondents President and
Members of the Philippine Senate have executed and will
execute a resolution of that body asserted to be
unconstitutional; and this we are asked to prevent, to
paraphrase the Federal Supreme Court. I could not do
better than make mine the conclusion of that High
Tribunal that rather than a judicial controversy which we
are asked to decide, it is a position of authority over the
governmental acts of another and co-equal department
which we are asked to assume—an authority which plainly
we do not possess.
236

Vera vs. Avelino
In the adjudicated cases, it has often been said that in

actual and appropriate controversies submitted to the
courts the judiciary has the constitutional power to declare
unconstitutional any legislative or executive act which
violates the Constitution; thus, in the case of Angara vs.
Electoral Commission (63 Phil., 139, 182), the fourth
conclusion established by this court was as follows:
* * * * * * *
"(d) That 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."
(Italics supplied.)
But I am of the considered opinion that, aside from such

writs, as that of habeas corpus, as may be guaranteed in
the Constitution, all others of a purely statutory origin and
coersive in their operation are not issuable by the judiciary
against either of the other coordinate and co-equal
departments. In the latter cases, I think the function of the
judiciary, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, does
not go beyond the declaration of constitutionality or
unconstitutionality of the legislative or executive act
assailed. But some would ask how such a judgment could
be enforced as against the other two departments or either
of them. I believe that in a democratic system of
government, built as it is upon the principle of separation
of powers, with the consequent freedom of each department
from direct control by the others, the effectiveness of the
adjudications of the courts, in cases properly coming under
their jurisdiction, has perforce to depend upon the
conscience of those at the head of, or representing, the
other two departments, and their loyalty to the
Constitution.. I for one am persuaded that when the
officers in whom at the time are vested the executive and
legislative power should see that the highest court of the
land, at the head of the judicial power, has, in a case
properly brought before it and within its legitimate
jurisdiction, decided that an act of
237
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 237

Vera vs. Avelino
the executive or legislative department is unconstitutional,

their conscience and loyalty to the Constitution can safely
be relied upon to make them, with good grace, respect such
final adjudication. As was said in Angara vs. Electoral
Commission (supra), our Constitution is, of course, lacking
perfection and perfectibility; but it has been deemed by the
f ramers of this and similar antecedent organic laws pref-
erable to leave the three coordinate departments without
power of coercion, one against the other, with the
exceptions which may have been therein established, to
open the door to mutual invasion of jurisdiction, with the
consequent usurpation of powers of the invaded
department. And it is here where appeal will have to be
made to the conscience of the department concerned. If the
executive or legislative department, in such cases, should
abuse its powers or act against good conscience, or in a
manner disloyal to the Constitution, ignoring the judgment
of the courts, the aggrieved party will have to seek his
remedy through the ordinary processes of democracy.
During our consideration of this case reference has been
made to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States in Barry vs. United States ex rel. Cunningham (279
U. S, 597; 73 Law. ed. 867). But an examination of the facts
of that case will readily reveal that the question of whether
or not Cunningham should have been released on habeas
corpus arose from his arrest by order of the United States
Senate in the course of certain proceedings before that
body, sitting as a tribunal to judge of the election, returns
and qualifications of William S. Vare for Senator. It was
held that:
"In exercising the power to judge the elections, returns and

qualifications of its members, the Senate acts as a judicial
tribunal, and the authority to require the attendance of witnesses
is a necessary incident of the power to adjudge, in no wise inferior
under like circumstances to that exercised by a court of justice."
(P. 873.)
In the last sentence of the same paragraph the court

speaks of the power of the Senate "to compel a witness to
appear to give testimony necessary to enable that body
efficiently
238

Vera vs. Avelino
to exercise a legislative function;" and the court proceeds:

"but the principle is equally, if not a fortiori applicable
where the Senate is exercising a judicial function." (Italics
supplied.). It will thus appear that the powers of the Senate
there involved were not legislative but judicial in character
which fact differentiates the case from those here cited,
wherein purely legislative powers or functions of the
Legislature or any branch thereof were in question. There
is no wonder, therefore, that the Federal Supreme Court, in
the Barry case, by what really amounts to an obiter, made
the remark at the conclusion of its opinion that "if judicial
interference can be successfully invoked it can only be upon
a clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use of
the power as will constitute a denial of due process of law,"
the power referred to being the judicial power to which the
court refers in the paragraph which I have quoted above. In
such a case, the Senate being permitted by the Constitution
to exercise, for a special purpose, a portion of the powers
which primarily belong to the judiciary, it is but proper
that any abuse of such limited and special power,
constituting a denial of due process of law, should have its
redress in the judicial department, with the Supreme Court
as the final arbiter; not so in cases where any branch of the
legislative department is exercising powers or functions
purely legislative in nature and, therefore, within its
allotted province under the Constitution, as in the case at
bar. The Federal Supreme Court speaks of "judicial
interference" without specifying its kind or nature. Much
less does it say that such interference will necessarily be
coercive in character. But even if it had in mind the writ of
habeas corpus there applied for, this being a high
prerogative writ (29 C. J., 6, 7) the privilege of which is
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in our Constitution
(Article III, section 1, paragraph [14]), it is in a class apart
from the coercive writs or process spoken of elsewhere in
this opinion—it is not merely a statutory remedy, such as
in-
239
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 239
Vera vs. Avelino
junction, prohibition, etc., but a constitutional remedy

which by its very nature should be binding, in proper cases,
upon any department or agency of the Government to
which it may be lawfully addressed.
TUASON, J., concurring and dissenting:
I concur in the result. On the authority of Alejandrino vs.

Quezon (46 Phil., 83), "the writ prayed for cannot issue for
the whole simple reason that the Supreme Court does not
possess the power of coercion to make the Philippine
Senate take any particular action."
With regret I have to dissent from the majority opinion
upholding the constitutionality of the Pendatum
Resolution.
That the National Assembly, now Congress, retains the
power it possessed prior to the approval of the Constitution
over the uncontested election, returns and qualifications of
its members, cannot successfully be disputed. This power
remains intact, unaffected by section 11, Article VI of the
Constitution, which limits the jurisdiction of the Electoral
Tribunal to election, returns, and qualifications of members
of Congress that are the subject of protest.
But within this limited sphere of its jurisdiction, the
authority of the Electoral Tribunal is supreme, absolute,
exclusive. In the language of section 11, Article VI of the
Constitution (supra), "the Electoral Tribunal shall be the
sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns
and qualifications of their respective members."
In Angara vs. Electoral Commission (63 Phil., 139), it
was held, in the light of the deliberations of the
Constitutional Convention, that the purpose of the creation
of the Electoral Commission "was to transfer in its totality
all the power previously exercised by the legislature in
matters pertaining to contested elections of its members, to
an independent and impartial tribunal," which, though
constituted by majority members of the legislature, "is a
body separate from and independent of the legislature."
240

Vera vs. Avelino
It was said that "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"; that "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 that "this is as effective a
restriction upon the legislative power as an express
prohibition in the Constitution." In other parts of the
decision, this court characterized as exclusive the
jurisdiction of the Electoral Commission over protests
against the election of members of the National Assembly
and "determination thereof."
No stronger language than this can be found to
emphasize the completeness of the inhibition on the
National Assembly from interference in any matter
pertaining to an election protest filed with the Electoral
Commission.
The resolution in question destroys the exclusive
character of the Electoral Tribunal's power. It encroaches
upon the Electoral Tribunal's prerogative as the sole judge
of all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of the members of the Congress, In seeking
the suspension of the petitioners on the strength of the
reported election irregularities in Central Luzon,
irregularities which constitute the sole basis of the main
protest, to that extent the resolution passed judgment on
the truth or probabilities of the charges, although the
judgment may not have been intended as final. At the very
least, the resolution touches directly on a matter which
involves a senatorial election contest. From whatever
standpoint one may look at the Pendatun Resolution, it is
hard to escape the conclusion that it oversteps the bounds
of the Senate's authority and trespasses on a territory
entirely reserved for the Electoral Tribunal.
Viewed from another angle, the legality of petitioners'
suspension is open to attack. This suspension was resorted
241
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 241

Vera vs. Avelino
to as an auxiliary and interlocutory step subordinated to

the final outcome of the election protest filed against them.
Only a f ew will disagree with the proposition that the
power of the Senate or the House of Representatives to
suspend its members as a subsidiary measure for causes
connected with their election, returns and qualifications, is,
if such power exists, an implied power derived from the
power to remove or exclude, or what is the same thing in
this connection, the power to invalidate an election. It
follows that where the principal power has been taken
away, as in the case of protested elections, the accessory
power to suspend vanishes. The fact that the power to
suspend may not have been transferred, as is contended, to
the Electoral Commission does not argue in favor of the
contention that it still resides in the Congress.
PERFECTO J., dissenting:
I. TO MEET OR NOT TO MEET THE CHALLENGE

The challenge has been flung. Shall we evade it by an
unmanly and shameful retreat?
By this case the highest tribunal of the land is
undergoing a crucial test. Shall it do honor to its
constitutional rôle as the last bastion of the "regime of
justice" proclaimed by the Constitution in its preamble, as
one of the fundamental goals of the government it
established?,
The Constitution itself is on the balance. Fundamental
principles of good government, basic human rights, prime
rules for the existence of an orderly society have been
trampled upon. The victims come to the Supreme Court
where the last line of democracy lies. Shall we allow that
line to give in under the onslaught? Shall we betray the
faith of our people?
Shall we refuse to do our part, our duty, our mission, to
maintain in our country a government of laws, only
because we have to face a powerful group of senators?
242

Vera vs. Avelino
Three senators of the Philippines, duly proclaimed as

elected by 1,736,407 combined votes cast by qualified
Filipino electors, immediately after assuming their
respective positions, were deprived of their seats in the
Senate through the unscrupulous, irresponsible, and
subversive action of a tyrannical and ruthless majority who
would not stop even to a downright trampling of the
fundamental law. The victims come to us clamoring for
relief and justice. Shall we meet the clamor with deaf ears?
Shall we remain aloof with callous indifference to a
flagrant violation of the Constitution? Shall we leave the
victims at the mercy of a despotic oligarchy and allow the
latter to supplant democracy? Shall we leave them instead
to pin their hopes on popular justice, if they be patient
enough not to seek justice by their hands or by the people
who exalted them by their suffrage to be their spokesmen
in the Senate and in Congress?
Within the remaining span of our life, never shall we be
more conscious of the great privilege of performing our
duties as the ultimate guardians of the f undamental
source of vitality of our nation as an organic whole,
whether normality prevails or the people boil in the
cauldron of exsurging partisan passions. The very essence
of constitutional government is under our trust and the
momentous question is whether we shall betray that trust
and keep unblemished our judicial escutcheon. The
blinding grandeur of the unprecedented opportunity
challenging us cannot fail to move our whole being, from
enderon to the inner recesses of heart and brains, in the
effort to be equal to the high duty.
II. CONFLICT OF PHILOSOPHIES

Under the admitted lack of perfection and perfectibility of
our Constitution, it being the work of men, still we can not
subscribe to the nihilistic theory that there are flagrant
violations of its provisions, committed in utter oppression
of a minority, to whom our government is incapable of
giving redress, and when a judicial controversy arising
243
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 243

Vera vs. Avelino
from them is submitted for our decision we must allow

ourselves to be petrified in buddhistic nirvana and declare
ourselves impotent, like the bystander who can not lift a
finger to save people crying for help inside a burning house
or a little child inclosed in a cage full of hungry tigers.
Here, three senators of the Philippines are wantonly
deprived of their seats in the Senate as constitutional
representatives of the people. Here, chosen spokesmen of
many hundreds of thousands of qualified voters, are
silenced and muzzled, and their constitutional rights
trampled upon. The transgression of the fundamental law
is evident But it is alleged that the Supreme Court is
powerless to protect the victims, to revindicate their
constitutional rights and those of the qualified voters who
elevated them to office, and to restore law. It is alleged that
within our system of government there is absolutely no
remedy for such an oppression. The theory is an
unmistakable upshot of a philosophy of frustration,
defeatism, and despair. We can not subscribe to such an
effete philosophy, afflicted with moral asthenia, unable 'to
see but an horizon of failure. We refuse to adopt the
despairing and fatalistic attitude of decrepit and impotent
senility. Philosophical eunuchry is incompatible with
eunomy. Gelded intellectual virility or a dynamic moral
effeminacy has no place within the system of Philippine
constitutional democracy.
The f raming of our Constitution is based on a
philosophy of faith and hope, the philosophy of healthy,
vigorous and courageous youth, full of the zest of life,
brimming with sturdy and exalted ideals, drunk with the
wine of inspired ambition and filled with enthusiasm for all
good and beautif ul things, always dreaming of a nobler
and more glorious f uture. Within that strenuous
philosophy there is no place for the theory of impotency of
our system of government in redressing constitutional
transgressions and of the incapability of the courts of
justice in giving protection and redress to the victims.
244

Vera vs. Avelino
III. QUALITIES REQUIRED IN JUDICIAL FUNCTION

We cannot accept the invitation to bury our heads in
ostrich-like fashion in the sands of indifference and
inaction because, in having to exercise the constitutional
function of administering justice, we will be constrained to
face and take action against powerful, defiant or arrogant
parties. It is precisely in cases like this where we should
never show the least hesitancy in the performance of our
official duties and in the exercise of the loftiest function of
humanity: the administration of justice.
The judicial function calls for those qualities which, for
lack of better words, are described as manliness, moral
courage, intellectual decision, firmness of character, and
steadfastness of convictions. We accepted our position in
this court fully cognizant of the grave responsibilities it
entails and aware that it will exact from us all the best
that nature has bestowed on us. We must not give less. We
must not betray popular trust. We should not disappoint
the people.
IV. FACTS IN THE CASE

The Commission on Elections, pursuant to the provisions of
section 11 of Commonwealth Act No. 725, made the
canvass of the votes cast for senators in the election held on
April 23, 1946, and on May 23, 1946, proclaimed
petitioners as elected. (See accompanying Appendix A.)
Of the 16 senators proclaimed elected, 9 belong to the
Liberal Party, respondents Jose A. Avelino, Vicente
Francisco, Vicente Sotto, Melecio Arranz, Ramon Torres,
Mariano J. Cuenco, Olegario Clarin, Enrique Magalona,
and Salipada Pendatun; and 7 to the Nacionalista Party,
the 3 petitioners and Tomas Confesor, Carlos P. Garcia,
Tomas Cabili, and Alejo Mabanag.
Of the senators elected in 1941, 8 remain in office, 4
belonging to the Liberal Party, Domingo Imperial, Proceso
Sebastian, Sa Ramain Alonto, and Emiliano Tria Tirona;
245
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 245

Vera vs. Avelino
and 4 to the Nacionalista Party, Eulogio Rodriguez, Nicolas

Buendia, Pedro Hernaez, and Vicente Rama.
The Senate therefore, is actually composed of 13
Liberals, with a precarious majority of 2, and a minority of
11 Nacionalistas.
On May 25, 1946, in accordance with Commonwealth
Act No. 725, the Senate convened to inaugurate the regular
legislative session for this year.
The session, with all senators present, except Senators
Sa Ramain Alonto and Vicente Rama, began by the reading
of the proclamation made by the Commission on Elections,
as copied in the accompanying Appendix A. No objection
having been raised against the proclamation, there being
no question as to its legality and regularity, with all the 22
members present, including petitioners, recognized and
accepted as full-fledged senators of the Philippines, the
Senate proceeded to elect its President, a vacant position
previously held by President Manuel A. Roxas. The result
was: 3 absent; 2 abstained; for respondent Senator Jose A.
Avelino, 10 votes, including his own; for petitioner Senator
Jose O. Vera, 8 votes; and for Senator Carlos P. Garcia, 1
vote.
After respondent Senator Avelino assumed his office as
President of the Senate, it was moved that he receive the
collective oath of office of the newly elected senators, and,
at that juncture, Senator Salipada Pendatun proposed the
adoption of a resolution herein attached as Appendix B, as
a historical exhibit of the scurviest dealing a minority has
ever endured, the dispositive part of which reads as f
ollows:

Philippines, in session assembled, as it hereby resolves, to defer
the administration of oath and the sitting of JOSE O. VERA,
RAMON DIOKNO, and JOSE ROMERO, pending the hearing
and decision on the protests lodged against their elections,
wherein the terrorism averred in the report of the Commission on
Elections and in the report of the Provost Marshall constitute the
ground of said protests and will therefore be the subject of
investigation and determination."
246

Vera vs. Avelino
Debate began upon the adoption of the proposed resolution.
Afterwards it was unanimously agreed upon to postpone
further debate on the question for Monday, May 27, 1946.
The Senate proceeded thereafter to consider another
matter during which, in protest against the action taken by
the majority on the said matter, all the minority senators
walked out from the session hall, leaving therein only 12
majority senators, including the President of the Senate.
Taking advantage of the absence of all the minority
senators, the 12 majority senators remaining in the session
hall approved and adopted the Pendatun Resolution,
notwithstanding the fact that the Senate had already
postponed the further consideration of said resolution to
May 27, 1946, and the 12 majority senators, for lack of
quorum, could not, under the Constitution, proceed with
the business of the same and, therefore, had not the
authority either to reconsider the resolution taken by the
Senate, postponing the continuation of the debate on the
Pendatun Resolution to May 27, 1946, or to consider and
approve said resolution.
At the time the petition has been filed, May 27, 1946,
respondent Senator Jose Avelino, President of the Senate,
had already begun to put into effect the Pendatun
Resolution by ordering the Secretary of the Senate to erase
from the roll of the same the names of the three petitioners.
Among the three petitioners who are complaining of
being deprived of their constitutional and legal right to
continue sitting in the Senate of the Philippines is the
minority Floor Leader Jose O. Vera, who lost the election
for President of the Senate by the bare difference of two
votes. All the three petitioners, by the high positions they
formerly occupied in the Government of which we may take
judicial notice, are recognized as political leaders of
national stature, whose presence will do honor to any
legislative chamber of any country in the world.
247
VOL. 77, AUGUST 81, 1946 247

Vera vs. Avelino
V. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Upon the facts above related and the allegations made in
the petition under oath, including the one to the effect that
the respondents of the majority party are determined to
put into effect immediately the Pendatun Resolution, to
deprive the petitioners of their right to sit in the Senate,
the "sinister purpose" of Which was the approval, without
the intervention and participation of petitioners, of
important measures, including an alleged terroristic one
for judicial reorganization and the highly controversial Bell
Bill, as soon as the petition was submitted in the night of
May 27, 1946, the undersigned issued the preliminary
injunction prayed for in the petition upon petitioners' filing
a cash bond in the amount of P1,000. (Copy of the order is
attached as Appendix D.)
On May 29, 1946, the Supreme Court in banc was
specially called to session with the specific purpose of
considering the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
As the court f unctioning is a special division of six, and the
Supreme Court in banc was then in vacation, the session
had to be called upon the initiative of the Chief Justice. In
the meantime, the service of the writ was suspended.
The Supreme Court in banc adopted then the following
resolution:
"The court in banc, having been informed that a writ of

preliminary injunction has been issued in G. R. No. L-543, Jose O.
Vera vs. Jose Avelino by Justice Perfecto under sections 2 and 5 of
Rule 60, Resolved to set for hearing the petition for preliminary
injunction on Saturday, June 1st, 1946, at 10 o'clock a. m., for the
purpose of determining whether or not the issuance of said writ
was justified. Let notice be given to all the parties.
"The Chief Justice and Associate Justices Parás, Hilado and
Bengzon voted to dissolve the preliminary injunction in the
meantime."
Upon the adoption of the above resolution, the undersigned

instructed the Clerk to proceed with the service
248

Vera vs. Avelino
of the writ of preliminary injunction, which was

immediately served to respondents.
On June 3, 1946, a majority adopted the following
resolution, dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction:
"Considering that the preliminary injunction was issued in the

case of Jose O. Vera, petitioners, vs. Jose A. Avelino, respondents,
G. R. No. L-543, to preserve the status quo and thus prevent the
execution of the acts alleged under oath in the last part of
paragraph X of the petition, without the intervention of the
petitioners; and taking into consideration that this court, after
hearing both parties, at any rate believes and trusts that the
respondents will not carry out said acts during the pendency of
this proceeding, this court, without deciding whether or not the
said injunction was justified, hereby resolves to dissolve it in the
meantime, without prejudice to whatever action or decision this
court may take or render on the question involved in this case
including that of jurisdiction.
"Justice Parás concurs in the result.
"Justice Jaranilla absent.
"Justice Perfecto dissents as follows:
"The facts alleged in the petition show that petitioners'
fundamental rights have been trampled upon in open defiance of
the law and the Constitution; that respondents, in adopting the
Pendatun Resolution and trying to enforce it, usurped
constitutional functions exclusively entrusted by the people to the
Electoral Tribunal of the Senate, as an independent and separate
department of the government; that the people at large, who
voted for and of whom petitioners are legal representatives, are
intended to be deprived of their voice and vote on matters of
transcendental importance to the welfare and future of this
nation, that are and to be under consideration of the Senate.
Respondents did not deny these facts. They reduced themselves to
impugn the inherent and undisputable jurisdiction of this
Supreme Court to pass upon the above mentioned flagrant
violations of the Constitution and to afford coercive relief to the
victims thereof. We cannot agree with an action which history
may give a damaging interpretation. We must have a proper
respect to the judgment of posterity. We have a plain duty to
uphold the Constitution. We must not shirk that sacred duty. We
are called upon to protect the constitutional prerogatives of the
representatives of the people. Our loyalty to the people does not
permit any alternative action to that of extending the cloak of our
authority so that the representatives of the people may
249
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 249

Vera vs. Avelino
continue performing unhampered their fundamental prerogatives

and functions. We cannot agree with any suspension of their
exercise in utter violation of the fundamental law of the land. The
sovereignty of the people itself is involved in this case. We cannot
suffer the idea that in one of the crucial moments in the
performance of our functions and in the compliance of our duty as
is pointed out by our conscience, we have faltered. The
preliminary injunction must not be dissolved."
Although the belief expressed in the majority resolution is,

in effect, a moral injunction, addressed solely to the sense
of responsibility, fairness, decency, and patriotism of
respondents, without any enforceable legal sanction, the
majority being sure that respondents will not betray the
trust reposed on them, yet we felt it our duty to dissent
because in questions so important as those raised in this
case we do not agree with indirect and diplomatic
procedures, with wavering, innocuous and hesitating
action, with laodicean measures and resolutions, with
equivocal, furtive, and not forthputting attitude. In judicial
matters, the best policy is forthrightness, not ambiguity.
The way of Themis is always rectilinear. Her path is never
tortuous, labyrinthine, or misleading.
Without any attempt at prophecy, not long after the
resolution dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction,
events have shown that moral, indirect, or admonitory
injunctions by courts of justice are mere sounds transcribed
on scraps of paper, not worthier than the sheets on which
they are written. Hocking at the credulity, ingenuousness,
and compliance of the majority of this court, with the
exclusion of petitioners, respondents proceeded to carry out
the acts alleged in the last part of paragraph X of the
petition, such as the approval of the Bell bill, the
revamping of the judiciary system of the Philippines,
including the unconstitutional reduction of the membership
of the Supreme Court from eleven to seven, and the
measure which would wipe out the time-honored principle
of stability in the Philippine civil service system, by placing
many thousands of public officers and employees in
iniquitous insecurity in the positions in which they have
invested the best energies in years of public service.
250

Vera vs. Avelino
For the nonce, it will be hard to gauge and appraise the full
consequences of the resolution of June 5, 1946, dissolving
the writ of preliminary injunction based on the majority's
belief and trust that events have shown to be completely
hazy and groundless. It is only our fervent hope that the
consequences, whatever they may be, may not dampen the
enthusiasm of those who have reposed so much faith in the
success of our sovereign Republic as the pursuivant
heralding a new era to all subjugated peoples.
On June 8, 1946, petitioners filed a motion praying that
the above majority's resolution of June 3, 1946, be
reconsidered and that the writ of preliminary injunction be
restored. It remained deplorably unacted upon for weeks
until respondents were able to consummate the acts above
mentioned.
That action continues now to be pending before us for
decision, the same as respondents' motion to dismiss.
VI. JUNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPATION

Section 11 of Article VI of the Constitution reads as f
ollows:
"The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an

Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their
respective members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of
nine members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme
Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six
shall be members of the Senate or of the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen by each
House, three upon nomination of the party having the largest
number of votes and three of the party having the second largest
number of votes therein. The senior Justice in each Electoral
Tribunal shall be its Chairman."
The constitution of the Electoral Tribunals is provided in

section 13 of Article VI of the Constitution, wherein it is
required that they shall be constituted "within thirty days
after the Senate and the House of Representatives shall
have been organized with the election of their President
and Speaker, respectively."
251
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 251

Vera vs. Avelino
From the foregoing, it is evident that the power to judge

"all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications" of senators and representatives, is
exclusively lodged in the respective Electoral Tribunal, the
exclusivity being emphasized by the use of the word "sole"
by the drafters of the Constitution.
By the Pendatun Resolution, respondents exercised, in
effect, the power to judge "the election, returns, and
qualifications" of petitioners as senators of the Philippines,
duly proclaimed as elected on April 23, 1946.
From the very words of respondents themselves there
can be no possible mistakes as to the fact that, in adopting
the Pendatun Resolution, they exercised the judicial power
to judge a controversy concerning the election of petitioners
as senators of the Philippines.
From their motion to dismiss dated June 6,1946,
through Solicitor General Lorenzo Tañada and Atty.
Vicente J. Francisco, himself one of the respondents and is
the majority floor leader of the Senate, referring to the
reasons behind the adoption of the Pendatun Resolution,
we read:
"The Senate considers it against its dignity and inimical to its

welfare and integrity to allow petitioners to sit as members
pending the final determination of the question whether or not they
were duly elected * * * it was an expression of a legislative (?)
policy, a desire on the part of the Senate to recognize only
members whom it believes were legally elected." (Italics supplied.)
The respondents do not constitute the Senate Electoral
Tribunal which has the exclusive jurisdiction to exercise
said power. The fact that later three among the respondent
Senators were chosen to be members of said Tribunal does
not change the situation, nor cures the constitutional
inroad. They, therefore, in adopting the Pendatun
Resolution, usurped a power, a jurisdiction, and an
authority exclusively belonging to the Senate Electoral
Tribunal. The usurpation has been perpetrated in flagrant
violation of the Constitution. The Pendatun Resolution,
being unconstitutional, is null and void per se.
252

Vera vs. Avelino
Among the Justices who voted to declare it invalid, because

it wimbles the fundamental law, are two former members
of the constitutional convention and of its committee on
style, who took active part in the creation of the Electoral
Commission, and a former member of the Second National
Assembly which, by constitutional amendment, created the
present Senate and the two Electoral Tribunals. Justice
Hontiveros, one of the present three Justices who took part
in the framing of the original Constitution, did not
participate in the voting.
We have to bring out these facts because it is only logical
that the co-authors of the Constitution and of its
amendments must be in a better position to interpret their
own will, intention, and purposes as they expressed them
in their own words in the fundamental law.
VI. A. THE INTENT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE

CONSTITUTION IS IDENTICAL WITH THE INTENT OF
THEIR DELEGATES
Even the majority themselves admit that, in construing the
Constitution of the United States, the writings in "The
Federalist" of the delegates to the constitutional
convention, such as Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, have
persuasive force, the same as the book of Delegate Aruego
and of other members of our own constitutional convention
concerning the Constitution of the Philippines. It is only
logical that the authors themselves should be in the
advantageous situation of construing more exactly the
product of their own minds.
But, as if repenting for making the admission, foreseeing
the damaging consequences thereof for the majority's
position, they tried to neutralize it or subtract its validity
by seconding the sophistic distinction made by Willoughby
as to the conclusiveness of the parliamentary proceedings
as means of proper construction of the Constitution, on one
side, and of the statutes, on the other, since in the
legislative proceedings "it is the intent of the legislature we
seek," while in the proceedings of the constitutional con-
253
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 253

Vera vs. Avelino
vention "we are endeavoring to arrive at the intent of the

people through the discussions and deliberations of their
representatives." The distinction is absolutely groundless.
In either the constitutional convention or in the legislature,
it is the people who speak through their delegates and
representatives, and the intent of the people may only be
gathered f rom the utterances of said delegates and
representatives, The "intent of the legislature" in ordinary
laws is the "intent of the people," both being
undistinguishable for all practical purposes. And the
"intent of the people" in a constitutional convention is
identified with the "intent" of their delegates thereof. It is
absurd, impractical, and against the realities of all
experience to mention the "intent of the people" as
something different f rom and in opposition to the intent of
their own representatives. The delegates and
representatives are the mouthpiece of the people. In the
system of representative democracy prevailing in the
United States of America and in the Philippines, the people
never speak by themselves, but by their chosen
mouthpieces—the voters in the matter of the selection of
government officers, and the officers in the matter of
expressing the people's will in government or state matters.
There is no essential difference between the
parliamentary role of the delegates to a constitutional
convention and that of the members of a legislature. The f
act that the f ormer are charged with the drafting of the
fundamental law and the latter with the enactment of
ordinary laws does not change their common character as
representatives and mouthpieces of the people. In either
the Constitution or in the ordinary statutes, it is the
thought and the will of the people which are expressed.
What that thought and that will are can only be gathered f
rom the way they are expressed by the representatives.
The thought and the will of the people are interpreted and
expressed by the representatives and crystallized in the
words uttered and written by them. No one may pretend to
know the mean-
254

Vera vs. Avelino
ing of the expressions uttered or of the provisions written

better than the very persons who poured on them their own
thoughts and decisions. The thought and the will of the
people remain in the abstract, are incapable of caption, are
more ideological entities, and do not acquire form and can
not be pointed out or determined until and unless their
representatives in the constitutional convention or in the
legislature express them in concrete and specific words of
their own. The collective entity of the people is, by its very
inbeing, inarticulate. It becomes articulate only through its
chosen representatives. Its will is an aphlogistic amber
that becomes aflame only in the parliamentary actuations
of its delegates.
And if we are not dreaming, we must accept the fact that
what the representatives of the people stereotype either in
a constitution or in ordinary laws are their own personal
opinions and convictions, their own individual and personal
thoughts and wills, although in doing so they act in their
representative capacity. We, the members of the Supreme
Court, are also representatives of the people and are
performing our official functions in a representative
capacity, but the opinions we express and write flow, not
from any extrinsic or indwelling reservoir of justice,
reserved to us by the sovereign people, but from the
spiritual fountain of our own personal consciousness.
We will not dare to dispute any one's claim to wield, in
interpreting the fundamental law, the same authority of
such judicial giants as Marshall and Holmes, but we
consider it completely out of place to conclude that, because
in the present constitutional controversy we maintain that
the co-authors of our f undamental law are in a better
position to construe the very document in which they have
inf used the ideas which boiled in their minds, and gave a
definite form to their own convictions and decisions, said
great justices shall not be so authoritative in expounding
the United States Constitution, because they were not
members of the federal convention that framed it, even
though, it should be
255
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 255

Vera vs. Avelino
recalled, Chief Justice Marshall was one of the outstanding

figures in the Virginia convention that ratified said
Constitution. The mention is out of place, because it has
not been, and can not be, shown that the constitutional
opinions of Marshall and Holmes, f or which they were
hailed as authorities, are in conflict with what Madison,
Hamilton, Jay, and other delegates to the f ederal
convention had said or written as to the intent expressed in
said fundamental law; while in the present controversy,
there is an actual conflict of interpretation between former
delegates and those who never have been, and it happens
that the former members of the. constitutional convention
taking part in the disposal of this case, are unanimous in
construing the document in the drafting of which they took
personal and active part.
Of course, in our atmosphere of freedom of opinion,
outsiders may perfectly claim and pretend to know what
the delegates to our constitutional convention intended to
express in the Constitution better than the delegates
themselves, as it is possible for some anthropologists to
claim that they are in a position to recognize the children of
some parents better than the parents themselves. But
everybody must also agree that such feats of clairvoyance
are not within the range of normal experience and,
therefore, must not ordinarily be accepted at their face
value.
VII. UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURE

The Pendatun Resolution has been adopted when there
was no quorum in the Senate. Those present were only 12,
all respondent senators.
When respondents adopted the resolution, they
purportedly adopted it as a resolution of the Senate.
Section 10 (2) of Article VI of the Constitution provides
that "a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to
do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to
day and may compel the attendance of absent members in
such manner and under such penalties AS such House may
provide."
256

Vera vs. Avelino
It is evident, therefore, that, to do business, the Senate,

being composed of 24 members, needs the presence of at
least 13 senators. "A smaller number may adjourn from
day to day and may compel the attendance of absent
members," but not in exercising any other power, such as
the adoption of the Pendatun Resolution.
The procedure used by respondents in adopting the
Pendatun Resolution is, therefore, conclusively
unconstitutional.
VIII. CRIMINAL OFFENSES

Petitioners are among the senators who, having been
proclaimed elected by the Commission on Elections, are
duty bound to assume office from May 23, 1946, under the
following mandatory provision of section 12 of
Commonwealth Act No. 725:
"SEC. 12. The candidates for member of the House of

Representatives and those for Senator who have been proclaimed
elected by the respective Board of Canvassers and the
Commission on Elections shall assume office and shall hold
regular session for the year nineteen hundred and forty-six on
May twenty-five, nineteen hundred and forty-six. Within thirty-
five days after the election has been held, both Houses of
Congress shall meet in session and shall publicly count the votes
cast for the offices of President and Vice-President, in accordance
with Article VII, section two of the Constitution. The persons
respectively having the largest number of votes for President and
Vice-President shall be declared elected; but in case two or more
candidates shall have an equal and largest number of votes for
either office, one of them shall be chosen President or Vice-
President, as the case may be, by a majority vote of the members
of Congress in joint session assembled."
If petitioners should fail to discharge the duties of their

respective offices, they will incur criminal responsibility
and may be punished, according to the Penal Code, with
arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, or both.
"ART. 234. Refusal to discharge elective office.—The penalty of

arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be
imposed upon any person who, having been elected by popular
election to a public office, shall refuse without legal motive to be
sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office."
No one may prevent them from performing the duties of

their office, such as attending the meetings of the Senate
257
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 257

Vera vs. Avelino
or of any of its committees or subcommittees, or f rom

expressing their opinions or casting their votes, without
being criminally guilty of a violation of parliamentary
immunity, a criminal offense punished by the Penal Code
with prisión mayor.
"ART. 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity.—The penalty of

prisión mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall use
force, intimidation, threats, or fraud to prevent any member of the
National Assembly (Congress) from attending the meetings of the
Assembly (Congress) or of any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or
divisions thereof, from expressing his opinions or casting his vote;
and the penalty of prisión correccional shall be imposed upon any
public officer or employee who shall, while the Assembly
(Congress) is in regular 01 special session, arrest or search any
member thereof, except in case such member has committed a
crime punishable under this Code by a penalty higher than
prisión mayor" (Words in parenthesis supplied.)
From the foregoing, it is evident that respondents have the

inexcusable duty of recognizing petitioners as legal
members of the Senate, otherwise they may be liable to
criminal prosecution for an offense defined and punished
by the Penal Code with imprisonment ranging f rom 6
years to 12 years.
IX. PETITIONERS' CREDENTIALS CONCLUSIVE AS

TO THEIR RIGHT TO THEIR SEATS IN THE SENATE
It is a duty from which respondents can not legally escape.
Otherwise they will invite the sword of Damocles of
criminal prosecution to be hanging on their heads. As the
Supreme Court of Kansas said in Re Gunn. 19 L. R. A., 519:
"But, again, we have what is known as a 'standard work' on

parliamentary or legislative practice. It is found in almost every
public library, is examined and referred to by every legislative
assembly and every congressional body, and its title is 'Cushing's
Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies/ * * * In section 240 it
is said: 'The principles of parliamentary law applicable to the
question are perfectly simple and plain, founded in the very
nature of things, established by the uniform practice and
authority of parliament, confirmed by reason and analogy. These
principles
258

Vera vs. Avelino
are as follows: First, that every person duly returned is a member,

whether legally elected or not, until his election is set aside;
second, that no person who is not duly returned is a member,
although legally elected, until his election is established; third,
that conflicting claimants, both in form legally returned (that
would be where two persons had certificates), are neither of them
entitled to be considered as members until the question between
them has been settled; fourth, that those members who are duly
returned, and they alone—the members' whose rights are to be
determined being excluded—constitute the judicial tribunal for
the decision of all questions of this nature.' Upon this question of
certificates, we also cite the contest in the United States Senate
from Montana, which is the latest utterance of the highest
legislative body in this land. In the report of the majority of the
committee it is said: 'The majority of the committee are of the
opinion that, if this body of persons had lawful and constitutional
certificates of their election, that title is a good title against all the
world, governing their associates in that body, governing the
senate, governing everybody who had a lawful duty to determine
who are lawfully elected representatives, until there can be an
adjudication by the House itself to the contrary; and that nobody
can be heard to say, and that no authority can be permitted to
inquire into or determine, the actual facts of the election as
against that title.'" (51st Congress, 1st Session [21 Cong. Record,
pt. 3, pp. 2906-2810], p. 521.)
The court also quoted from the American and English

Encyclopedia, saying:
"The American and English Encyclopedia summarizes the law of

the worth of a certificate of election as follows: 'lt is settled that
when it is made the duty of certain officers to canvass the votes,
and issue a certificate of election in favor of the successful
candidate, a certificate of such officers, regular upon its face, is
sufficient to entitle the person holding it to the possession of the
office during an action to contest the right.' Volume 6, p. 373; 33
Law. ed,, 948; State vs. Buckland (23 Kan., 359)."
The court might well have added that Ruling Case Law
wholly confirms its stand:
"* * * The certificate entitles the recipient to exercise the office

until the regular constitutional authority shall determine who is
legally elected officer, and it is the duty of the incumbent of an
office at the expiration of his term to surrender it to one who has
received a certificate of election and has qualified thereunder. If it
is desired to contest the election or qualification of such person,
this may be
259
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 259

Vera vs. Avelino
done in the manner prescribed by law for determining claims to

an office. Disbursing officers, charged with the payment of
salaries, have a right to rely on the apparent title, and treat the
officer who is clothed with it as the officer de jure, without
inquiring whether another has the better right. While a certificate
of election may be superseded by a decree in proceedings to
contest the election, it cannot be subjected to attack in a collateral
proceeding in which the title may be in question; and if the time
should pass within which such proceeding may be instituted the
title may become absolute and indefeasible in default of any
contest. Hence it has been said that the holder of a certificate of
election who has duly qualified is prima facie entitled to the office
when his term begins, as against everyone except a de facto officer
in possession under color of authority. He is entitled to retain
possession and to perform the duties of the office without
interference until such certificate is set aside by some appropriate
proceeding." (22 R. C. L., 436, 437.)
This Supreme Court laid down the same doctrine by

stating the following:
"* * * AS a matter of fact, certification by the proper provincial

board of canvassers is sufficient to entitle a member-elect to a
seat in the National Assembly and to render him eligible to any
office in said body (No. 1, par. 1, Rules of the National Assembly,
adopted December 6, 1935).
"Under the practice prevailing both in the English House of
Commons and in the Congress of the United States, confirmation
is neither necessary in order to entitle a member-elect to take his
seat. The return of the proper election officers is sufficient, and
the memberelect presenting such return begins to enjoy the
privileges of a member from the time that he takes his oath of
office (Laws of England, vol. 12, pp. 331, 332; vol. 21, pp. 694, 695;
U. S. C. A., Title 2, secs. 21, 25, 26). Confirmation is in order only
in cases of contested elections where the decision is adverse to the
claims of the protestant. In England, the judges' decision or report
in controverted elections is certified to the Speaker of the House
of Commons, and the House, upon being informed of such
certificate or report by the Speaker, is required to enter the same
upon the Journals, and to give such directions for confirming or
altering the return, or for the issue of a writ for a new election, or
for carrying into execution the determination as circumstances
may require (31 & 32 Vict., c. 125, sec. 13). In the United States,
it is believed, the order or decision of the particular house itself is
generally regarded as sufficient, without any actual alteration or
amendment of the return (Cushing,
260

Vera vs. Avelino
Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, 9th ed., sec. 166)."

(Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil., 139, 180, 181.)
As a matter of fact, in the Gunn case, the Supreme Court of

Kansas had occasion to comment on the exclusion of ten
duly proclaimed members from the roll of the House, and
unhesitatingly condemned it in these words:
"It seems that while 10 contestants are marked in the Dunsmore

Journal as present, but not voting, 10 names on the certified roll
are wholly omitted. Any rightful reason for such omission does not
appear. We cannot perceive any valid reason for such omission,
even if 10 certified members had their seats contested. Every
person duly returned to a house of representatives, and having a
certificate, is a member thereof, whether elected or not, whether
eligible or not, until his election is set aside. And this must be set
aside by the House, not by the individual members before
organization, not by any one member, not by any contestant, not
by any mob. Before organization, a few members properly elected,
meeting in caucus or otherwise, cannot pass upon the 'elections,
returns, and qualifications of the members of the House to be
thereafter organized.' If one member, before organization can
object to any other member duly returned and having a
certificate, then all members can be objected to, and there could
be no one left to organize any house. In McCrary on Election (2d
ed., s. 204) the practice is thus stated; 'Where two or more persons
claim the same office, and where a judicial investigation is
required to settle the contest upon the merits, it is often necessary
to determine which of the claimants shall be permitted to qualify
and to exercise the functions of the office pending such
investigation. If the office were to remain vacant pending the
contest, it might frequently happen that the greater part of the
term would expire before it could be filled; and thus the interests
of the people might suffer for the want of a public officer. Besides,
if the mere institution of a contest were deemed sufficient to
prevent the swearing in of the person holding the usual
credentials, it is easy to see that every great and serious injustice
might be done. If this were the rule, it would only be necessary for
an evildisposed person to contest the right of his successful rival,
and to protract the contest as long as possible, in order to deprive
the latter of his office for at least a part of the term; and this
might be done by a contest having little or no merit on his side for
it would be impossible to discover in advance of an investigation
the absence of merit. And, again, if the party holding the ordinary
credentials to an office could be kept out of the office by the mere
institution of a contest, the organization of a legislative body—
such, for example,
261
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 261

Vera vs. Avelino
as the House of Representatives of the United States—might be

altogether prevented by instituting contests against a majority of
the members; or what is more to be apprehended, the relative
strength of political parties in such body might be changed by
instituting contest against members of one or the other of such
parties. These considerations have made it necessary to adopt and
to adhere to the rule that the person holding the ordinary
credential shall be qualified and allowed to act pending a contest
and until a decision can be had on the merits.
"Now, why should not this principle be followed? Why

should not this rule, which is universal throughout the
states of this Union, and which is accepted and adopted by
Congress, be followed in the state of Kansas? It has history
to sustain it. It has the wisdom of long years of legislative
experience to sustain it. It has reason to sustain it. And let
us here remark that in every state of this Union where,
through political excitement or personal contests, a
different rule has been adopted, disturbance, violence, and
almost bloodshed have always occurred." (Pp. 522-523.)
X. ELECTORAL CONTESTS ON LEGISLATIVE

POSITIONS
Much reliance has been placed by respondents on the
Rafols case in support of their authority to suspend the
seatings of petitioners through the Pendatun Resolution.
We agree that not enough emphasis may be placed on
said case, although not as an isolated one but as the initial
link of a chain of historical events handing with the leading
and epoch-making, although not enough of the publicized
case of Angara vs. Electoral Commission, decided on July
15, 1936, which reversed the pusillanimous, vacillating,
and self-contradictory majority position taken in
Alejandrino vs. Quezon, decided on September 11, 1924.
A little piece of history will be helping.
In 1925, Nicolas A. Rafols was reelected as
representative from one district of Cebu. The House of
Representatives of the 7th Philippine Legislature
suspended his seating. The resolution for suspension was
passed after a bitter parliamentary debate between
members of the majority belonging to the Nacionalista
Party and the members of the minority belonging to the
Democrata Party. The House was then presided over by
Speaker Manuel A.
262

Vera vs. Avelino
Roxas, now President of the Philippines, and among those

who with us opposed the resolution for suspension were
Representative Jose Avelino from Samar, now President of
the Senate, and the minority floor leader, Claro M. Recto,
who later became President of the constitutional
convention. Justice Briones, like ourselves, happened then
to be also a member of the House of Representives. The
arbitrariness and injustice committed against
Representative Rafols were bitterly resented and rankled
deep in the hearts of the minority who felt they were
despotically trampled upon by a bulldozing majority.
The Pro-Anti political struggle in 1934 resulted in new
alignments'. Former Democratas Avelino and Recto
happened to align with the Anti majority, the same as
Justice Hontiveros, who also became a Delegate to the
constitutional convention; and former Nacionalistas
Manuel A. Roxas and Manuel C. Briones happened to align
with the Pro minority.
In 1934, the constitutional convention was presided over
by Claro M. Recto, as President, Ruperto Montinola, as
First Vice President, and Teodoro Sandico, as Second Vice
President. All of them belonged to the Democrata Party
when in 1925 injustice was committed against
Representative Rafols. Recto and Sandico were aligned
with the Anti majority and Montinola with the Pro
minority.
Although the Pro delegates of the convention were only
about one-fifth of all the members, some of them were
elected to preside over important committees—Rafael
Palma, on principles; Jose P. Laurel, on the bill of rights;
Manuel C. Briones, on legislative power; and ourselves, on
citizenship. By his leading and influential rôle in the
drafting of the Constitution, Manuel A. Roxas was pointed
out as the Hamilton of our convention.
With such men and with their background, the
convention introduced the innovation of creating the
Electoral Commission of the National Assembly, to which
the power to judge upon the election, returns, and
qualifications of legislators, formerly exercised by
legislative bodies, was
263
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 263

Vera vs. Avelino
transferred. The innovation was introduced precisely with

the purpose of avoiding the repetition of such abuses and
injustices as those committed against Rafols, by lodging the
judicial power of deciding electoral contests for legislative
positions to where it should logically belong—to a judicial
body, which is expected to do justice and not to serve
partisan political interests without compunctions and
scruples.
Although the initiative came from the minority, Pros, it
was wholeheartedly supported by the majority Anti
leaders. The members of the constitutional convention,
with the most prominent leaders thereof, were fully aware
of how changeable the political fortunes of men are, and it
was in the interest of everybody that the rights of the
minority be equally protected as those of the majority.
Through Justice Laurel, a former member of the
constitutional convention, this Supreme Court said:
"The members of the Constitutional Convention who framed our

fundamental law were in their majority men mature in years and
experience. To be sure, many of them were familiar with the
history and political development of other countries of the world.
When, therefore, they deemed it wise to create an Electoral
Commission as a constitutional organ and invested it with the
exclusive function of passing upon and determining the election,
returns, and qualifications of the members of the National
Assembly, they must have done so not only in the light of their
own experience but also having in view the experience of other
enlightened peoples of the world. The creation of the Electoral
Commission was designed to remedy certain evils of which the
framers of our Constitution were cognizant. Notwithstanding the
vigorous opposition of some members of the convention to its
creation, the plan, as hereinabove stated, was approved by that
body by a vote of 98 against 58. All that can be said now is that,
upon the approval of the Constitution, the creation of the
Electoral Commission is the expression of the wisdom and
'ultimate justice of the people.' (Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural
Address, March 4, 1861.)
"From the deliberations of our Constitutional Convention it is
evident that the purpose was to transfer in its totality all the
powers previously exercised by the legislature in matters
pertaining to contested elections of its members, to an
independent and impartial tribunal. It was not so much the
knowledge and appreciation of
264

Vera vs. Avelino
contemporary constitutional precedents, however, as the long-felt

need of determining legislative contests devoid of partisan
considerations which prompted the people, acting through their
delegates to the Convention, to provide for this body known as the
Electoral Commission. With this end in view, a composite body in
which both the majority and minority parties are equally
represented to off-set partisan influence in its deliberations was
created, and further endowed with judicial temper by including in
its membership three justices of the Supreme Court.
"The Electoral Commission is a constitutional creation,
invested with the necessary authority in the performance and
execution of the limited and specific function assigned to it by the
Constitution. * * *
"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 (Ex
parte Lewis, 45 Tex. Crim. Rep., 1; State vs. Whisman, 36 S. D.,
260; L. R. A., 1917B, 1)." (Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63
Phil., 139, 174-176.)
XI. SEPARATION OF POWERS
There is much misunderstanding as to the real import,
meaning, and scope of the much vaunted principle of
separation of powers due to the conf usion in many minds
between two conceptions: one, naive and vulgar; and the
other, constitutional and strictly juridical. The trouble lies
in the f act that, for lack of a more appropriate term, the
word separation has been used to convey a group of
concepts and ideas, when the word only expresses just one
of partial aspect of one of said concepts and ideas. Thus a
misconception results by confounding a part with the whole
or the whole with the part.
The vulgar notion of separation of powers appears to be
simple, rudimentary, and clear-cut. As a consequence, the
principle of separation of powers creates in the mind of the
ignorant or uninitiated the images of the different depart-
265
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 265

Vera vs. Avelino
ments of government as individual units, each one existing

independently, all alone by itself, completely disconnected
from the remaining all others. The picture in their mental
panorama offers, in effect, the appearance of each
department as a complete government by itself. Each
governmental department appears to be a veritable state in
the general set up of the Philippine state, like the
autonomous kingdoms and princedoms of the maharajahs
of India. Such undiscerning and rudimentary notion can
not fit in the pattern framed by the Filipino people through
their representatives in the constitutional convention. The
true concept of the principle of separation of powers may
not be obtained but in conjunction with the political
structure set up by the Constitution and only in accordance
with the specific provisions thereof.
The drafters of the Constitution were fully acquainted
with the then prevailing confusions and misconceptions as
to the meaning of the principle of separation of powers. One
outstanding instance is shown in the self-contradicting,
courageless decision in Alejandrino vs. Quezon (46 Phil.,
83), where the majority deflected from the natural and
logical consequences of the premises unanimously agreed
upon by all the members of the court using as a subterfuge
an erroneous, disrupting, and subversive interpretation
and application of the principle of separation of powers,
becoming since a fetish of a class of unanalytical
constitutional doctrinaires, distressingly unmindful of its
dangerous implications, eager to emulate, in proclaiming it
as a legal dogma, the plangent exertions of housetop
bawlers preaching the virtues of a new panacea.
Fully knowing the prevailing misconceptions regarding
said principle, although there was an implicit agreement
that it is one of those underlying principles of government
ordered by the Constitution to be established, the delegates
to the constitutional convention purposely avoided its
inclusion in the Declaration of Principles inserted as
Article II of the fundamental law. They even went to the
extent of avoiding to mention it by the phrase it is
designated.
266

Vera vs. Avelino
XII. CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPTION—THE ONLY

ONE ACCEPTABLE
The only acceptable conception of the principle of
separation of powers within our democracy is the
constitutional one, We must reject any idea of it as
something existing by itself, independent of the
Constitution and, as some misguided jurist would have it,
even superior to the fundamental law of the land.
"The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our

system of government. It obtains not through express provision
but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the
government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its
jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. * * * The
Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and
balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various
departments of the government. For example, the Chief Executive
under our Constitution is so far made a check on the legislative
power that this assent is required in the enactment of laws. This,
however, is subject to the further check that a bill may become a
law notwithstanding the refusal of the President to approve it, by
a vote of two-thirds or three-fourths, as the case may be, of the
National Assembly. The President has also the right to convene
the Assembly in special session whenever he chooses. On the
other hand, the National Assembly operates as a check on the
Executive in the sense that its consent through its Commission on
Appointments is necessary in the appointment of certain officers;
and the concurrence of a majority of all its members is essential to
the conclusion of treaties. Furthermore, in its power to determine
what courts other than the Supreme Court shall be established, to
define their jurisdiction and to appropriate funds for their
support, the National Assembly controls the judicial department
to a certain extent. The Assembly also exercises the judicial power
of trying impeachments. And the judiciary in turn, with the
Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the other
departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law, and
hence to declare executive and legislative acts void if violative of
the Constitution." (Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil.,
139, 156, 157.)
The framers of the Constitution had never intended to

create or allow the existence of governmental departments
as autonomous states within the republican state of the
Philippines. The three departments mentioned in the Con-
267
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 267

Vera vs. Avelino
stitution were created, not as complete independent units,

but as limbs and organs of the organic unit of the
government ordained to be established. So each
department is independent and separate from the others in
the sense that it is an organ specifically entrusted with the
performance of specific functions, not only for the sake of
efficiency resulting from division of labor, but to avoid
tyranny, despotism, and dictatorship which, as experience
and history have taught, result from the concentration of
government powers in one person or in an oligarchical
group.
XIII. FUNDAMENTAL IDEA OF UNITY

The idea of unity is fundamental in our Constitution.
The Filipino people ordained and promulgated the
Constitution "in order to establish a government that shall
embody their ideals, conserve and develop the patrimony of
the nation, promote the general welfare, and secure to
themselves and their posterity the blessings of
independence under a regime of justice, liberty, and
democracy" (Preamble of the Constitution). "The
Philippines is a republic state. Sovereignty resides in the
people and all government authority emanates from them"
(section 1, Article 11, Constitution). Under this principle
we must view the whole government as a unit, and all
departments and other government organs, agencies and
instrumentalities as parts of that unit in the same way as
the head, the hands, and the heart are parts of a human
body.
By examining the provisions of the Constitution, the
vulgar notion of the principle of separation of powers can
be shown to be wrong, as there is neither an office nor a
department, created or allowed to be created under the
Constitution, that may be considered as effectively
separate from the others, as the misinformed people would
have it. As a matter of fact, there is no government power
vested exclusively in any authority, office, or government
agency. Section 1 of Article VI vests the legislative power in
a Congress of the Philippines, but this provision does not
preclude the President of the Philippines and the Supreme
Court from partaking in the exercise of legislative power.
268

Vera vs. Avelino
The President has the initiative in the making of

appropriations which may not be increased by Congress
except those pertaining to Congress itself and the judicial
department, and the President may veto any bill enacted
by Congress (sections 19 and 20, Article VI, of the
Constitution). The Supreme Court may declare
unconstitutional and, therefore, nullify a law enacted by
Congress and approved by the President of the Philippines
(sections 2 and 10, Article VIII, of the Constitution). The
Supreme Court exercises, besides, legislative power in
promulgating rules concerning pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts (section 13, Article VIII, of the
Constitution).
The executive power is vested in a President of the
Philippines (section 1, Article VII, Constitution of the
Philippines), but the Senate and House of Representatives,
through the Commission on Appointments, take part in the
exercise of the executive power of appointment (section 12,
Article VI, and section 10 [3], Article VII, of the
Constitution), and in the granting of amnesty and in
making treaties (sections 10 [6] and 10 [7], Article VII, of
the Constitution). The Supreme Court exercises executive
power regarding the transfer of judges from their districts
to another. (Section 7, Article VIII, of the Constitution.)
Tribunals' power to order the execution of their decisions
and mandates is of executive character.
The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and
in such inferior court as may be established by law (section
1, Article VIII, of the Constitution). But there are many
instances wherein the President of the Philippines must
administer justice, so it is required from him by the
Constitution to swear to "do justice to every man" (section
7, Article VII, of the Constitution). And by impeachment
proceedings, the House of Representatives and the Senate
exercise judicial function (Article IX, of the Constitution).
Their power to construe and apply their own rules and
their disciplinary power to punish their own members for
disorderly conduct are of judicial nature.
Furthermore, there are specific f unctions of government
entrusted to agencies other than the three great
departments
269
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 269

Vera vs. Avelino
of government, the legislative, the executive, and the

judicial. The judicial function of judging contests as to
election, returns, and qualifications of senators is entrusted
to the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate; and that of judging
contests as to election, returns, and qualifications of
representatives, to the Electoral Tribunal of the House of
Representatives (section 11, Article VI, of the
Constitution). The executive f unction of auditing the
government accounts is entrusted to a constitutional
officer, the Auditor General (Article XI, of the
Constitution), and the administrative function of
supervising elections is entrusted to the Commission on
Elections (Article X, of the Constitution).
To understand well the true meaning of the principle of
separation of powers, it is necessary to remember and pay
special attention to the fact that the idea of separation
refers, not to departments, organs, or other government
agencies, but to powers exercised. The things separated are
not the subject of the powers, but the functions to be
performed. It means division of functions, but not of
officials or organs which will perform them. It is analogous
to the economic principle of division of labor practiced in a
factory where multiple manufacturing processes are
performed to produce a finished article.
XIV. APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF

SEPARATION OF POWERS
In the discussion of the question how the principle of
separation of powers must be applied, misunderstood ideas
have been asserted as springboard to jump to rash and
unfounded conclusions. Among such assertions is the one
which would have the three great departments of
government, not only co-equal in dignity, but,
notwithstanding their admitted coordination, as actual
sovereigns—as if within the sphere of the sovereignty of
our people the existence of other sovereigns can be
admitted—each one with f ull powers to destroy and
trample upon the Constitution, with the victims absolutely
incapable and powerless to obtain redress against the
offense. Such an assertion would
270

Vera vs. Avelino
make of said departments as states within a state. The
fundamental error of the assertion lies in the failure to
consider the following principle of the Constitution:
"Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority

emanates from them." (Section 1, Article II.)
Each department of government is nothing but a mere

agency by which the people exercise its supreme
sovereignty. Within the framework of the Constitution, our
government may be compared to a human being: the
legislative department is the brain that formulates policies
and rules through the laws it enacts; the executive
department is the hand that executes such policies and
rules; the judicial department is the conscience that
declares what is wrong and what is right, and determines
what acts are in consonance with or inimical to the
constitutional unity as the very condition of life and
survival.
The brain that defines policies and the hand that
executes them may go astray and disregard, by their
physical power, the infallible pronouncements and
admonitions of conscience; but nothing can and should stop
conscience in its great ethical mission as a condition
indispensable to existence itself. By the same token,
nothing can and should silence tribunals as the organs, in
the government set up by the Constitution, of the collective
conscience of the people. In the long trip of destiny, that
collective conscience shall ever be the guiding star,
unerring even in the gloomiest confusions.
Applying to the case at bar the principle of separation of
powers in its true meaning, the logical result will be
precisely the opposite of the position taken by respondents
who, unwittingly, are insistently invoking it to challenge
the power, authority, and jurisdiction of this Supreme
Court to entertain the petition and to grant petitioners
coercive relief.
From the facts of the case, it is evident that respondents
encroached upon, invaded, and usurped the ancillary
powers to suspend petitioners in relation to the power to
judge electoral contests concerning senators, a power which
the
271
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 271

Vera vs. Avelino
Constitution specifically assigns to the Senate Electoral

Tribunal, exclusive of all other departments, agencies, or
organs of government. That power of suspension is
accessory, adjective, complementary, and ancillary to the
substantial power to judge said electoral contests. The
accessory must follow the principal; the adjective, the
substantive; the complementary, the complemented.
"It is a settled rule of construction that where a general power is

conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for
the exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also
conferred (Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, eighth ed., vol. I,
pp. 138, 139)." (Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil., 139,
177.)
That power of suspension may, in the interest of reason

and justice, be exercised by the Senate Electoral Tribunal
in relation to an electoral contest, among other possible
cases that can be surmised, where two or more allegedly
elected senators are in possession of apparently valid
credentials of having been proclaimed as duly elected. In
such a case, as the Constitution does not allow more than
twenty-four senators to sit in the Senate and there is, in
the meantime, no possibility of determining who among the
contestants have been duly elected—all the claimants
being in possession of incompatible, self-denying and self-
destroying credentials—reason counsels that all of them be
suspended by the Electoral Tribunal pending the
presentation of the necessary evidence to allow one of them
to take his seat in the Senate until the contest is finally
decided.
The usurpation perpetrated by respondents is a flagrant
violation of the principle of separation of powers, they
having invaded a ground belonging exclusively to the
Senate Electoral Tribunal.
XV. THE SENATE WITHOUT POWER TO SUSPEND ITS

MEMBERS
Respondents lack the power of suspension, not only as
ancillary remedy in senatorial election contests, but even in
the exercise of the Senate judicial power to punish its
members for disorderly conduct. The majority and the
minority of the Supreme Court in the case of Alejandrino
272

Vera vs. Avelino
vs. Quezon (46 Phil., 83), agreed unanimously with respect

to said Senate judicial power. Justice Malcolm, speaking
for the Court in said case, stated:
"As to whether the power to 'suspend' is then included in the

power to 'punish,' a power granted to the two Houses of the
Legislature by the Constitution, or in the power to 'remove/ a
power granted to the Governor-General by the Constitution, it
would appear that neither is the correct hypothesis. The
Constitution has purposely withheld from the two Houses of the
Legislature and the Governor-General alike the power to suspend
an appointive member of the Legislature.
"It is noteworthy that the Congress of the United States has
not in all its long history suspended a member. And the reason is
obvious. Punishment by way of reprimand or fine vindicates the
outraged dignity of the House without depriving the constituency
of representation; expulsion, when permissible, likewise
vindicates the honor of the legislative body while giving to the
constituency an opportunity to elect anew; but suspension
deprives the electoral district of representation without that
district being afforded any means by which to fill the vacancy. By
suspension, the seat remains filled but the occupant is silenced.
Suspension for one year is equivalent to qualified expulsion or
removal." (P. 96.)
And Justice Johnson, who dissented on another ground,

explained the ruling in greater detail as follows:
"The power to punish for misbehavior was intended purely as a

disciplinary measure. When a member of the Legislature is
removed either by the Governor-General or by the Legislature, a
vacancy exists, and the law gives the Governor-General the right
to appoint, and the people of the district the right to fill the
vacancy by election, so that the people may again, under either
case, be represented. A 'suspension' of a member, however, does
not create a vacancy, and the people of the district are without a
representative and the GovernorGeneral cannot appoint one and
the people cannot elect one during the period of suspension. They
are without representation during that period. They are, for the
period of suspension, taxed without representation. If a member,
under the power to punish, can be suspended for one year, for the
same reason he may be suspended for ten or more years, thus
depriving the Governor-General of his right under the law, and
the people of the district, of a representative, and without a
remedy in the premises.
"If the power 'to punish for disorderly behavior' includes the
power to suspend or to deprive a member of all his rights, and if
the suspension is in effect a removal, then an appointed member
may be
273
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 273

Vera vs. Avelino
removed, under the power to punish, by a mere majority, while

the law requires a two-thirds majority to remove an elective
member. In other words, if under the power to 'punish,' any
member of the legislature, including an appointive member, may
be in effect removed, then an elective member may be removed by
a majority vote only, thus encroaching upon the power of the
executive department of the government, as well as violating the
powers conferred upon the Legislature, because the Legislature
cannot remove an elective member except by two-thirds majority.
'It is strenuously argued by the respondents that the resolution
depriving the petitioner 'of all his prerogatives, privileges, and
emoluments for the period of one year' is not a removal from his
office but a mere suspension. The resolution does not use the word
'suspend' but does use the word 'deprive.' It provides that the
petitioner is 'deprived' of all his prerogatives, etc,, for a period of
one year. If that word means anything it means that all of the
prerogatives, privileges, and emoluments of the petitioner and the
citizens whom he represents have been taken from him and them.
His prerogatives, privileges, and emoluments constitute his right
to be a member of the Senate under his appointment, his right to
represent the people of his district, and his right to exercise all
the duties and to assume all the responsibilities pertaining to his
office. His emoluments constitute his right to receive his salary
and the benefits pertaining to his office as a senator. If a value
can be placed upon his prerogatives, privileges, and emoluments,
and if he has been deprived of them, then it must follow that they
have been removed from him, or that he has been removed from
them. At any rate, the resolution has separated the petitioner and
the people whom he represents and deprived them of all of their
prerogatives, privileges, and emoluments for the period of one
year; and, for all intents and purposes, he and the people whom
he represents, have been deprived of their prerogatives,
privileges, and emoluments, and in effect, has been removed from
any participation in the legislative affairs of the government.
"A great many cases have been studied on the question of
removal and suspension, and we are confident in the assertion
that the power to punish does not include the power to remove or
suspend. A suspension from an office or a deprivation of the rights
of an officer of all his prerogatives, privileges, and emoluments, is
in effect a deprivation or a removal from office for the time
mentioned in the order of suspension. It has been held that a
suspension from office for an indefinite time and lasting for a
period of six months, lost its temporary character, ceased to be a
suspension, and in effect became a removal from such office. It
was held, in the case of State vs. Chamber of Commerce, that the
suspension of a member was a
274

Vera vs. Avelino
qualified expulsion, and that whether it was called a suspension

or expulsion or removal, it in effect disfranchised the person
suspended. In the case of Metsker vs. Nelly, it was held that a
suspension or a deprivation for either a definite or indefinite
period is in effect a removal. In the case of Gregory vs. New York,
it was held that the power to remove an officer or punish him does
not include the power to suspend him temporarily from his office.
A mere suspension would not create a vacancy, and the
anomalous and unfortunate condition would exist of an office,—an
officer,—but no vacancy, and of no one whose right and duty it
was to execute the office." (Pp. 100-102.)
XVI. POWER OF JUDICIAL NATURE

The principle of separation of powers can not be invoked to
deny the Supreme Court jurisdiction in this case, because
to decide the question of validity or nullity of the Pendatun
Resolution, of whether petitioners are illegally deprived of
their constitutional rights and privileges as senators of the
Philippines, of whether respondents must or must not be
enjoined by injunction or prohibition from illegally and
unconstitutionally trampling upon the constitutional and
legal rights of petitioners, is a function judicial in nature
and, not having been-assigned by the Constitution to other
department of government, is logically within the province
of courts of justice, including the Supreme Court.
The power, authority, and jurisdiction to decide any
question as to the allocation of powers by the Constitution
are of judicial nature and belong to courts of justice. In
denying that power to the Supreme Court, respondents
only add insult to injury by maintaining that "there is no
remedy for any usurpation being committed in adopting the
Pendatun Resolution.
"But in the main, the Constitution has blocked out with deft
strokes and in bold lines, allotment of power to the executive, the
legislative and the judicial departments of the government. The
overlapping and interlacing of functions and duties between the
several departments, however, sometimes makes it hard to say
just where the one leaves off and the other begins. In times of
social disquietude or political excitement, the great landmarks of
the Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred, if not entirely
obliterated. In cases of
275
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 275

Vera vs. Avelino
conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ

which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of
powers between the several departments and among the integral
or constituent units thereof.
"As any human production, our Constitution is of course
lacking perfection and perfectibility, but as much as it was within
the power of our people, acting through their delegates to so
provide, that instrument which is the expression of their
sovereignty however limited has established a republican
government intended to operate and function as a harmonious
whole, under a system of checks and balances, and subject to
specific limitations and restrictions provided in the said
instrument. The Constitution sets forth in no uncertain language
the restrictions and limitations upon governmental powers and
agencies. If these restrictions and limitations are transcended it
would be inconceivable if the Constitution had not provided for a
mechanism by which to direct the course of government along
constitutional channels, for then the distribution of powers would
be mere verbiage, the bill of rights mere expressions of sentiment,
and the principles of good government mere political apothegms.
Certainly, the limitations and restrictions embodied in our
Constitution are real as they should be in any living constitution.
In the United States where no express constitutional grant is
found in their constitution, the possession of this moderating
power of the courts, not to speak of its historical origin and
development there, has been set at rest by popular acquiescense
for a period of more than one and a half centuries. In our case,
this moderating power is granted, if not expressly, by clear
implication from section 2 of article VIII of our Constitution.
"The Constitution is a definition of the powers of government.
Who is to determine the nature, scope and extent of such powers?
The Constitution itself has provided for the instrumentality of the
judiciary as the rational way. And when the Judiciary mediates to
allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any
superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality
nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the
solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to
determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution
and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights
which that instrument secures and guarantees to them. This is in
truth all that is involved in what is termed 'judicial supremacy'
which properly is the power of judicial review under the
Constitution. Even then, this power of judicial review is limited to
actual cases and controversies to be exercised after full
opportunity of argument by the parties, and limited further to the
constitutional question raised or the very lis mota presented. Any
atempt at abstraction could only lead to dialectics .and barren
legal questions and to
276

Vera vs. Avelino
sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities. Narrowed as its

function is in this manner, the judiciary does not pass upon
questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation. More
than that, courts accord the presumption of constitutionality to
legislative enactments, not only because the legislature is
presumed to abide by the Constitution but also because the
judiciary in the determination of actual cases and controversies
must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as expressed
through their representatives in the executive and legislative
departments of the government." (Angara vs. Electoral
Commission, 63 Phil., 139, 157-159.)
XVII. SENATORIAL TERRORISM

There is much loose talk as to the inherent power of the
Senate to adopt the unconstitutional Pendatun Resolution
for the self-preservation of the Senate, for its dignity and
decorum. We are afraid that, by the facts publicly known to
everybody, such talks serve only to reveal sheer hypocrisy.
There is absolutely no showing as to the undesirability of
petitioners' presence in the Senate. There is absolutely no
showing that they are guilty of any disorderly conduct or of
any action by which they may be subject to criminal
prosecution, or that by their conduct they have become
unworthy to have a seat in Congress. On the other hand,
there are three senators who are under indictment for the
heinous crime of treason before the People's Court, not for
acts committed before their election, but for acts committed
while they were already holding office as such senators.
Respondents have not taken any action looking toward the
suspension of said three senators. Although we do not
propose to criticize respondents for this inaction, as the
three senators indicted for treason must be presumed
innocent unless and until they are finally convicted by the
proper court, such inaction serves to emphasize the
iniquitous discrimination committed against petitioners,
who have not even been indicted before any court of justice
for the slightest violation of law.
The Pendatun Resolution invokes the report of the
Commission on Elections as to alleged electoral
irregularities in four Central Luzon provinces; but there is
absolutely
277
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 277

Vera vs. Avelino
nothing in the resolution to show that petitioners had

anything to do with said irregularities, and respondents
themselves, in the canvass of votes for President and Vice
President, had counted as valid all the votes cast in said
Central Luzon provinces and had accepted as good ones the
votes they themselves obtained therein. In f act, one of
them occupied the first place in one of said provinces. This
self-contradicting attitude has absolutely no defense in the
judgment of any decent person. To this we must add that
the Pendatun Resolution, in fact, misquotes the report of
the Commission on elections in the sense that it tries to
convey an impression contrary to said report by quoting
parts thereof based on unverified and uncorroborated
hearsay evidence, and ignoring its main conclusion in
which it is stated that the alleged irregularities did not
affect the orderly election in said provinces.
There is much talk as to the alleged terrorism prevailing
in the provinces in question during election, but there is
absolutely no reliable evidence as to such terrorism that
can be found either in the report of the Commission on
Elections or in the Pendatun Resolution. Even in the case
that such terrorism really happened, there is no reason to
make any pronouncement based on it without proper
investigation by proper authorities, and in the present case
the proper authority that must determine, if such terrorism
did really take place and affect the election on April 23,
1946, concerning senators, is the Senate Electoral
Tribunal. And until then there is no reason why
respondents must themselves resort to senatorial terrorism
in order to oppress, muzzle, and crush minority senators,
such as petitioners. Congressional terrorism is no better
than lawless terrorism. Because it is practised by despotic
government officials does not make it holy and sacrosanct.
XVIII. NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW

There are assertions to the effect that we may exercise
jurisdiction against individual officers of the Senate, but
not against the Senate or against respondents. We do not
agree with such an unmanly attitude. We do not agree
278

Vera vs. Avelino
with the theory that the Supreme Court must exercise its
judicial power to give redress to the victims of a usurpation
only when its decision is addressed to minor officers of
government, but not when it is addressed to powerful ul
ones. We will incur a grave dereliction of duty if we should
refuse to grant the redress that justice demands only and
because we have to reverse an illegal and unconstitutional
act committed by a legislative chamber, or a group 01 its
members, specially if the group forms the majority, or by
Congress itself. To show that under the Constitution
nobody is above the law, we have only to refer to its
provision which recognizes in the Supreme Court the power
to nullify and declare unconstitutional an act enacted by
Congress and approved by the President of the Philippines.
A law passed by Congress is enacted with the direct
participation of the two great departments of our
government, the legislative and the executive.
Nevertheless, if the law enacted is unconstitutional, the
Supreme Court has the power to declare it so and deny
effect to the same.
"The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can

become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the
United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its
interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles,
supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
"That the people have an original right to establish, for their
future government, such principles, as, in their opinion, shall
most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the
whole Amer-ican fabric has been erected. The exercise of this
original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to
be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established,
are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they
proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be
permanent.
"This original and supreme will organizes the government, and
assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may
either stop here, or establish certain limits not to be transcended
by those departments.
"The government of the United States is of the latter
description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited;
and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the
constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and
to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these
limits
279
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 279

Vera vs. Avelino
may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?

The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited
powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on
whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed,
are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be
contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act
repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution
by an ordinary act.
"Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The
constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by
ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts,
and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please
to alter it.
"If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative
act contrary to the constitution is not law; if the latter part be
true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part
of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
"Certainly ,all those who have framed written constitutions
contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount
law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such
government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to
the constitution, is void.
"This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution,
and, is consequently, to be considered, by this court, as one of the
fundamental principles of our society.
* * * * * * *
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide
on the operation of each.
"So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law
and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court
must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding
the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding
the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules
governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
"If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the
constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the
constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to
which they both apply.
"Those, then, who controvert the principle that the constitution
is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to
the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on
the constitution, and see only the law.
280

Vera vs. Avelino
"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written

constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the
principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in
practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that if the
legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act,
notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It
would be given to the legislature a practical and real
omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict
their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and
declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure." Manbury
vs. Madison (1 Cr., 137; 2 Law. ed., pp. 60, 73, 74).
"But we have found no better expression of the true principle
on this subject than the language of Justice Hoar, in the Supreme
Court of Massachusetts reported in 14 Gray, 226, in the case of
Burnham vs. Morrissey. That was a case in which the plaintiff
was imprisoned under an order of the House of Representatives of
the Massachusetts Legislature for refusing to answer certain
questions as a witness, and to produce certain books and papers. *
The opinion, or statement rather, was .concurred in by all the
court, including the venerable Chief Justice Shaw;
" "The House of Representatives (says the court) is not the final
judge of its own power and privileges in cases in which the rights
and liberties of the subject are concerned, but the legality of its
action may be examined and determined by this court. That
House is not the Legislature, but only a part of it, and is therefore
subject in its action to the law in common with all other bodies,
officers and tribunals within the Commonwealth. Especially is it
competent and proper for this court to consider whether its
proceedings are in conformity with the Constitution and laws,
because living under a written Constitution, no branch or
department of the government is supreme, and it is the province
and duty of the judicial department to determine in cases
regularly brought before them, whether the powers of any branch
of the government, and even those of the Legislature in the
enactment of laws, have been exercised in conformity to the
Constitution; and if they have not, to treat their acts as null and
void. * * *'
"In this statement of the law, and in the principles there laid
down, we fully concur." (Kilbourn vs. Thompson, 26 Law. ed., 377,
390.)
Professor Edward S. Corwin, in his book "The Twilight of

the Supreme Court," says:
'The pivotal proposition was set up that between the making of

law and its construction was an intrinsic difference of the most
vital
281
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 281

Vera vs. Avelino
nature; and that since the latter function was demonstrably a

daily concern of courts, it followed necessarily that the legislature
might not perform it in a way to produce finally binding results.
"Applied to the Constitution, this reasoning automatically
produces judicial review. As Marshall insists in Marbury vs.
Madison, the Constitution, a solemn act of the people themselves,
was made to be preserved, and no organ of government may alter
its terms. But interpretation, which belongs to the courts
exclusively and is 'their peculiar and proper province,' does not
change the law, it conserves it. By the same token, judicial
interpretation of the Constitution is vested with the authority of
the Constitution itself." (P. 110.)
"A passage in Cicero's De Legibus, the substance of which was
later recalled by Coke, describes the law as 'the silent magistrate'
and the magistrate as 'the law speaking/ Despite the apparent
implication of these words, the Roman Law would seem to have
regarded interpretation as primarily an extension and condition
of the process of law-making, as the maxim 'cuius est cendere est
interpretari' appears to bear witness. Reciprocally, the official
attitude of the common law has not always escaped skeptical
comment. A yearbook of the fourteenth century records a dispute
among the judges over whether they were enforcing reason or only
their own will, and two hundred years later we find an
Elizabethan bishop asserting flatly: 'Whoever hath an absolute
authority to interpret any written or spoken laws, it is he who is
truly the law-giver to all intents and purposes, and not the person
who first wrote or spoke them.' Suppose the good bishop had
known of the Constitution of the United States, a law first spoken
in 1789 and subject 150 years later to the 'absolute authority' of
the Supreme Court to interpret it!" (Pp. 112-113.)
"What gives the coup de grace to the idea that—in the words of
Chief Justice Marshall—'courts are the mere instruments of the
law and can will nothing,' is the simple fact that most so-called
'doubtful cases' could very evidently have been decided just the
opposite way to which they were decided without the least
infraction of the rules of logical discourse or the least attenuation
of the principle of stare decisis." (P. 114.)
"In short, decision is choice; the very circumstance which
produces doubtful cases guarantees the Court what Justice Holmes
has termed 'the sovereign prerogative of choice' in deciding them.
This circumstance may be described as a factual situation which
forthwith divides, as it were, the acknowledged body of
established law so far as it bears upon the said facts into two
opposed—two antinomous—camps." (P. 115.)
"Should the Constitution be construed 'strictly' or 'liberally'?
That depends logically on whether it came from the people at
large or from
282

Vera vs. Avelino
state sovereignties. Then there is the antimony of 'inclusive'

versus 'exclusive' construction—in Marbury vs. Madison Chief
Justice Marshall invoked the latter principle, in McCulloch vs.
Maryland he invoked the former. Again there is the issue whether
the Court's mandate to interpret the Constitution embraces the
power and duty of adopting it to change circumstances. Marshall
thought that it did, while Taney repudiated any such mission for
the Court; and in the recent Minnesota Moratorium Case the
Chief Justice takes as his point of departure Marshall's doctrine,
while Justice Sutherland, dissenting, builds upon Taney's
doctrine. Furthermore, there are those diverse attitudes of a
shifting majority of the Bench which, though they may never have
found clear-cut expression in antithetical principles of
constitutional construction, have given rise none the less to
conflicting courses of decision, the potential bases of future
opposed arguments which either counsel or the Court may adopt
without incurring professional reproach. In brief, alternative
principles of construction and alternative lines of precedent
constantly vest the Court with a freedom virtually legislative in
scope in choos-ing the values which it shall promote through its
reading of the Constitution." (P. 117.)
"The concept of a 'government of laws' simmers down,
therefore, under the Constitution to a power in the Supreme
Court which is without statable limits to set the metes and
bounds of political authority in both the nation and the states.
But the dominating characteristic of judicial review, wide-ranging
though it be, is that it is ordinarily a negative power only—a
power of refusal. The Court can forbid somebody else to act but
cannot, usually, act itself; in the words of Professor Powell, it 'can
unmake the laws of Congress, but cannot fill the gap.'" (P. 122.)
"To summarize: From legal history emerge two conceptions of
law—that of a code of intrinsic justice, not of human creation but
discoverable by human reason, and that of a body of ordinances
assertive of human will and owing its binding force thereto. The
idea of a 'government of laws and not of men' originally predicated
the sway of the former kind of law and a 'legislative power' which
was merely a power to declare such law, and hence was
indistinguishable in principle from 'judicial power.' But as we saw
in the previous chapter, the very essence of the American
conception of the separation of powers is its insistence upon the
inherent distinction between law-making and law-interpreting,
and its assignment of the latter to the judiciary, a notion which,
when brought to bear upon the Constitution, yields judicial
review. For all that, the idea that legislative power embraces an
element of law-declaring power has never been entirely expelled
from our inherited legal traditions, while, conversely, modern
analysis of the interpretative function
283
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 283

Vera vs. Avelino
exercised by courts plainly discloses that it involves unavoidably

an exercise of choice substantially legislative in character; and
especially is this so as the Supreme Court's interpretations of the
national Constitution, on account of the wealth of alternative
doctrines from which the Court may at any time approach its task
of interpretation. In short, the meaning of 'a government of laws'
in our constitutional law and theory is government subject to
judicial disallowance." (Pp. 146, 147.)
XIX. PARALLELISM WITH THE ANGARA CASE

No better precedent may be invoked to decide several
important questions raised in this case than the decision
rendered by this very Supreme Court in Angara vs.
Electoral Commission, supra, which may be considered as
an outstanding milestone in Philippine jurisprudence.
The f acts and legal issues in said case are in exact
parallel with the ones in the present controversy. Then,
there was a conflict between two independent departments
or organs of government, the National Assembly and the
Electoral Tribunal. Now the conflict is between two equally
independent departments or organs of government, the
Senate and the Senate Electoral Tribunal. The differences
between the contending parties consist in: (a) that while
the former National Assembly constituted the whole
legislative department, the present Senate is but a part of
the legislative department; (b) that the National Assembly
that adopted the resolution then in question and, finally,
declared by this Supreme Court as unconstitutional, null,
and void, acted as a body, with undisputable quorum and
regularity; while the Pendatun Resolution was adopted by
but 12 senators or the majority Liberal Party, when there
was no quorum present in the Senate. There is also an
accidental difference in the fact that, in the Angara case,
the Electoral Commission was the respondent and the
National Assembly was not a party, although 6 members
thereof were also parties in the case, they constituting a
majority of two-thirds of the Electoral Commission
membership; while in the present case, the Senate
Electoral Tribunal is not a party, and the respond-
284

Vera vs. Avelino
ents are the majority members of the Senate, which is but

a branch of Congress. In both cases the legislative
department upon which the legislative power was vested by
the Constitution—the National Assembly in 1936 or
Congress in 1946—is definitely not a party.
Another diff erence between the two cases is the fact
that in the Angara case, petitioner sought to nullify a
resolution of the Electoral Commission because it was in
conflict with one previously adopted by the National
Assembly. The Supreme Court, in denying the petition,
nullified instead the resolution of the National Assembly as
adopted without the powers vested in it by the
Constitution. In the present case, petitioners pray for the
annulment of the Pendatun Resolution which the
respondents or the Senate could not and cannot adopt
without transgressing the Constitution.
Many of the conclusions and pronouncements of the
Supreme Court in the Angara case may appear as if
written expressly to decide several of the very legal issues
raised in the present case. This will readily appear if we
should read "Senate" and "Senate Electoral Tribunal,"
respectively, in lieu of "National Assembly" and "Electoral
Commission," in the following summarized conclusion in
said case:
"(a) That the government established by the

Constitution follows fundamentally the theory of
separation of powers into the legislative, the
executive and the judicial.
"(b) That the system of checks and balances and the
overlapping of functions and duties often makes
difficult the delimitation of the powers granted.
"(c) That in cases of conflict between the several
departments and among the agencies thereof, the
judiciary, with the Supreme Court as the final
arbiter, is the only constitutional mechanism
devised finally to resolve the conflict and allocate
constitutional boundaries.
"(d) That 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.
285
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 285

Vera vs. Avelino
"(e) That the Electoral Commission is an independent

constitutional creation with specific powers and
functions to execute and perform, closer for
purposes of classification to the legislative than to
any of the other two departments of the
government.
"(/) That the Electoral Commission is the sole judge of
all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the National
Assembly.
"(g) That under the organic law prevailing before the
present Constitution went into effect, each house of
the legislature was respectively the sole judge of the
elections, returns, and qualifications of their
elective members.
"(h) That the present Constitution has transferred all
the powers previously exercised by the legislature
with respect to contests relating to the election,
returns and qualifications of its members, to the
Electoral Commission.
That such transfer of power from the legislature to
"(i)
the Electoral Commission was full, clear and
complete, and carried with it ex necesitate rei the
implied power inter alia to prescribe the rules and
regulations as to the time and manner of filing
protests.
"(j) That the avowed purpose in creating the Electoral
Commission was to have an independent
constitutional organ pass upon all contests relating
to the election, returns and qualifications of
members of the National Assembly, devoid of
partisan influence or consideration, which object
would be frustrated if the National Assembly were
to retain the power to prescribe rules and
regulations regarding the manner of conducting
said contests.
"(k) That section 4 of article VI of the Constitution
repealed not only section 18 of the Jones Law
making each house of the Philippine Legislature
respectively the sole judge of the elections, returns
and qualifications of its elective members, but also
section 478 of Act No. 3387 empowering each house
to prescribe by resolution the time and manner of
filing contests against the election of its members,
the time and manner of notifying the adverse party,
and bond or bonds, to be required, if any, and to fix
the costs and expenses of contest.
"(j) That confirmation by the National Assembly of the
election of any member, irrespective of whether his
election is contested or not, is not essential before
such member-elect may discharge the duties and
enjoy the privileges of a member of the National
Assembly.
"(m) That confirmation by the National Assembly of the
election of any member against whom no protest
had been filed prior to said confirmation, does not
and cannot deprive the Electoral Commission of its
incidental power to prescribe the time within which
protests
286

Vera vs. Avelino
against the election of any member of the National

Assembly should be filed." (Angara vs. Electoral
Commission, supra.)
Without the slightest ambiguity, in perspicuous and clear-
cut language, the Supreme Court stated the real conflict,
grave and transcendental, in said case as follows:
"Here is then presented an actual controversy involving as it does

a conflict of a grave constitutional nature between the National
Assembly on the one hand, and the Electoral Commission on the
other." (Angara vs. Electoral Commission, supra.)
The Supreme Court then, in the f ull consciousness of the

far-reaching importance of the pronouncement it had to
make, with manly courage stated:
"From the very nature of the republican government established

in our country in the light of American experience and of our own,
upon the judicial department is thrown the solemn and
inescapable obligation of interpreting the Constitution and
defining constitutional boundaries. * * * Conflicting claims of
authority under the fundamental law between departmental
powers and agencies of the government are necessarily
determined by the judiciary in justiciable and appropriate cases.
Discarding the English type and other European types of
constitutional government, the framers of our Constitution
adopted the American type where the written constitution is
interpreted and given effect by the judicial department. * * * The
nature of the present controversy shows the necessity of a final
constitutional arbiter to determine the conflict of authority
between two agencies created by the Constitution. Were we to
decline to take cognizance of the controversy, who will determine
the conflict? And if the conflict were left undecided and
undetermined, would not a void be thus created in our
constitutional system which may in the long run prove destructive
of the entire framework? To ask these questions is to answer
them. Natura vacuum abhorret, so must we avoid exhaustion in
our constitutional system. Upon principle, reason and authority,
we are clearly of the opinion that upon the admitted facts of the
present case, this court has jurisdiction over the Electoral
Commission and the subject matter of the present controversy for
the purpose of determining the character, scope and extent of the
constitutional grant to the Electoral Commission as 'the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of the members of the National Assembly.' "
(Angara vs. Electoral Commission, supra.)
Where the Supreme Court wrote "Electoral Commission" in

the last preceding lines, we may also write as well "Sen-
287
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 287

Vera vs. Avelino
ate," "House of Representatives," "Congress," "Senate
Electoral Tribunal," "House Electoral Tribunal," or any
other constitutional body.
The above pronouncements of the Supreme Court made
in the ringing words penned by Justice Jose P. Laurel who,
with President Roxas, Justice Briones, Justice Hontiveros,
former Justices Romualdez and Recto, and several others,
was among the leaders and most prominent figures in the
constitutional convention, we believe will sound through
the ages as the expression of permanent truth and
undisputable wisdom. Since the words have been written,
the question as to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to take
cognizance and decide controversies such as the present
one and to grant redress for or against parties like those
included in this litigation, has been unmistakably and
definitely settled in this jurisdiction.
XX. THREE DIFFERENT EDITIONS OF A SENTENCE

Regret can not be repressed when, upon reading the
majority opinion, one notices that, in the very first
paragraph heading it, truth is unwittingly immolated by,
as a counterpart of the Pendatun Resolution and without
the benefit of any ritual, attributing to the Commission on
Elections an assertion which in fact it did not make.
The Commission is represented to have fathered the
statement that in the Provinces of Pampanga, Nueva Ecija,
Bulacan and Tarlac, voting "did not reflect the true and
free expression of the popular will."
This assertion is the third revised edition of a 3-line
sentence appearing in the report of the Commission on
Elections. For clearness, we will reproduce the three
editions, the original one and the amended two:
First edition.—In the report of the Commission on
Elections, the sentence reads as follows:
"It is believed that the election in the provinces aforesaid did not
reflect the true and free expression of the popular will."
Second edition—The drafter of the Pendatun Resolution,

who appears to be ready to sacrifice truth if it is necessary
288

Vera vs. Avelino
to serve or bolster his interests and purposes, in

reproducing said statement, without any compunction or
scruple, changed the words "it is believed" to the words
"This Commission believes" as follows:
"This Commission believes that the election in the provinces

aforesaid did not reflect the true and f ree expression of the
popular will."
Third edition.—In the majority opinion the idea of belief by

third persons, contained in the report of the Commission,
and the idea of belief by the Commission, attributed in the
Pendatun Resolution. are eliminated and substituted by a
positive statement by the Commission on Elections of a
categorical and conclusive nature as follows:
"The Commission on Elections * * * stated that * * * the voting in

said region did not reflect the true and free expression of the
popular will."
The discrepancy is emphasized by reading the following

paragraph of the report of the Commission on Elections:
"Except for alleged suppression of the popular will in the

Provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac, Bulacan and certain
municipalities of Nueva Ecija wherein the voters were allegedly
intimidated or coerced by the Hukbalahaps and other lawless
elements to such an extent that the election in said provinces is
considered a farce, not being the free expression of the popular
will, the elections throughout the country were carried on
peacefully, honestly and in an orderly manner, as a result of which
the respective representatives-elect for all the provinces throughout
the country have been duly proclaimed by the various boards of
provincial canvassers, and the Commission on Elections on May
23, 1946, also proclaimed those elected senators in accordance
with section 11 of Commonwealth Act No. 725." (Italics supplied.)
From the foregoing, it is evident: (1) that the alleged

suppression of the popular will in Pampanga, Tarlac,
Bulacan, and certain municipalities of Nueva Ecija is
mentioned by the Commission only as hearsay inf
formation that the Commission itself, contrary to the idea
which the Pendatun Resolution or the majority opinion
conveys, does not accept; (2) that to emphasize the
Commission's refusal to accept the unverified information,
it explicitly and con-
289
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 289

Vera vs. Avelino
elusively manifested that "the elections throughout the

country were carried on peacefully, honestly and in an
orderly manner, as a result of which the respective
representatives-elect f or all the provinces throughout the
country have been duly proclaimed elected by the various
boards of provincial canvassers, and the Commission on
Elections on May 23, 1946, also proclaimed those elected
senators in accordance with section 11 of Commonwealth
Act No. 725."
An abiding respect f or truth compels us to point out the
above glaring error of fact, which is just a fitting prelude
and milieu to a long chain of errors of law spread over the
opinion of the majority, resulting in conclusions that we are
sure will fail to withstand the test of posterity.
XX A.UNJUSTIFIED AND RECKLESS

PRONOUNCEMENTS
The error of reading in the report of the Commission on
Elections assertions contrary to the ones appearing therein,
induces the majority to make pronouncements which are
necessarily groundless and unjustified, because premised
on assertions not borne out by the truth.
Thus, in justifying the adoption of the Pendatun
Resolution, the majority assert that "there are reasons to
believe it was prompted by the dictates of ordinary caution,
or of public policy" for "if, as reported by the corresponding
constitutional agency" (the Commission on Elections), the
elections held in the Provinces of Pampanga, Bulacan,
Tarlac, and Nueva Ecija "were so tainted with acts of
violence and intimidation, that the result was not the
legitimate expression of the voters' choice, the Senate made
no grievous mistake in foreseeing the probability that,
upon proof of such widespread lawlessness, the Electoral
Tribunal would annul the returns in that region (see
Gardiner vs. Romulo, 26 Phil, 521; Laurel, Elections [2d
Ed.], p. 448 et seq.), and declare herein petitioners not
entitled to seats in the Senate."
Taking as point or departure the false assumption, that
of attributing to the Commission on Elections a statement
290

Vera vs. Avelino
that, upon the very face of its report, is contrary to what it

made, the majority, not only attribute to the respondent
majority of the Senate preternatural prophetic foresight,
taking for granted what the- Senate Electoral Tribunal will
do, but by making the pronouncement pretend to assume
an improper róle, the one by which, in effect, they pretend
to direct and dictate to the Senate Electoral Tribunal what
it should do in the pending electoral protests against
petitioners, thus recklessly prejudicing the decision and
disposal of a litigation pending in an independent tribunal
with exclusive and final constitutional jurisdiction over
said litigation.
On second thought, it seems that the majority try, with
an apologetic attitude, to recede from the bold position of
practically announcing what the Senate Electoral Tribunal,
three members of which are Justices of the Supreme Court,
will do, by beginning to state that "there should be no
diversity of thought in a democratic country, at least, on
the legal effects of the alleged rampant lawlessness, root
and basis of the Pendatun Resolution," and ending with the
following paragraph:
"However, it must be observed and emphasized, herein is no

definite pronouncement that terrorism and violence actually
prevailed in a district to such extent that the result was not the
expression of the free will of the electorate. Such issue was not
tendered in these proceedings. It hinges upon proof to be produced
by protestants and protestees at the hearing of the respective
contests."
We can not but regret that the endeavor is futile, because it

can not subtract a scintilla from the boldness of the
pronouncement emphasized with the following reiteration:
'True, they may have no direct connection with the acts of
intimidation; yet the votes may be annulled just the same,
and if that happens, petitioners would not be among the
sixteen senators elected."
Furthermore, the recession seems only to be apparent,
used as a breathing respite, preparatory to another
onslaught, on less unjustified, reckless, and out of reason.
291
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 291

Vera vs. Avelino
Commenting on section 12 of Commonwealth Act No. 725,

the majority restrict the provision to those candidates
whose proclamation "is clear, unconditional, unclouded,"
adding—and here comes the aggressive thrust, prejudging
petitioners on the basis of an unfounded surmise—"that
such standard is not met by the petitioners, because in the
very document attesting to their election one member of
the Commission on Elections demurred to the non-
exclusion of the votes in Central Luzon, calling attention to
the reported reign of terror and violence in that region, and
virtually objecting to the certification of herein petitioners.
To be sure, it was the beclouded condition of petitioners'
credential (certificate of canvass) that partly prompted the
Senate to enact the precautionary measure herein
complained of."
The attack does not stop here. It goes even further
when, adducing as argument by analogy, an uncharitable
example is used by comparing the situation imagined
without any evidentiary foundation on fact by the
dissenting minority of one in the Commission on Elections
with the case if "the inclusion of petitioners' name in the
Commission's certificate had been made at the point of a
gangster's automatic," although adding that "the difference
between such situation and the instant litigation is one of
degree, broad and wide perhaps, * * *."
XXI FUTILE EFFORT TO NEUTRALIZE THE

SWEEPING EFFECT OF DECISION IN ANGARA CASE
In a futile effort to neutralize the sweeping effect of the
decision of this court in the Angara case, the majority
assume unfoundedly that in said case "no legislative body
or person was a litigant before the court," and that "no
directive was issued against a branch of the Legislature or
any member thereof " the statements being premised on the
error of fact and law that two-thirds of the members of the
Electoral Commission were assemblymen.
The fact that this court, in the Angara case, made
declarations nullifying a resolution of the National
Assembly
292

Vera vs. Avelino
is, according to the majority, "not decisive," when a better

precedent can hardly be cited to show the practical exercise
by the Supreme Court of its power to declare null and void
any legislative resolution violative of the fundamental law.
The majority recognize the power of this court to annul any
unconstitutional legislative enactment, citing as
authorities the epoch-making decision of Chief Justice
Marshall in Marbury vs. Madison, and the following
pronouncement of Justice Sutherland in the Minimum
Wage Case (261 U. S., 544):
"* * * The Constitution, by its own terms, is the supreme law of

the land, emanating from the people, the repository of ultimate
sovereignty under our form of government. A congressional
statute, on the other hand, is the act of an agency of this
sovereign authority, and if it conflicts with the Constitution, must
fall; for that which is not supreme must yield to that which is. To
hold it invalid (if it be invalid) is a plain exercise of the judicial
power—that power vested in courts to enable them to administer
justice according to law. From the authority to ascertain and
determine the law in a given case there necessarily results, in
case of conflict, the duty to declare and enforce the rule of the
supreme law and reject that of an inferior act of legislation which,
transcending the Constitution, is of no effect, and binding on no
one. This is not the exercise of a substantive power to review and
nullify acts of Congress, for no such substantive power exists. It is
simply a necessary concomitant of the power to hear and dispose
of a case or controversy properly before the court, to the
determination of which must be brought the test and measure of
the law."
If the above reasoning is accepted by the majority with

respect to a law enacted by two Houses of Congress and
approved by the Chief Executive, there is absolutely no
logic in denying its applicability to mere resolutions
adopted by just a legislative branch, by the Senate alone, or
by a group of senators acting collectively when the Senate
is without quorum. The Supreme Court has the power to
declare null and void such resolutions when they are in
conflict with the Constitution, the same as the acts of the
President as, according to the decision rendered by this
court in Planas vs. Gil (67 Phil., 62, 73, 74), cited with
approval by the majority, the Supreme Court has the
293
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 293

Vera vs. Avelino
power of "making an inquiry into the validity or

constitutionality of his (the Chief Executive's) acts when
these are properly challenged in an appropriate legal
proceeding."
The majority, accepting the pronouncement in the
Angara case that this court could not decline to take
cognizance of the controversy to determine the "character,
scope and extent" of the respective constitutional spheres of
action of the National Assembly and the Electoral
Commission, maintain that in the present case, there is
actually no antagonism between the Electoral Tribunal of
the Senate and the Senate itself, "for it is not suggested
that the former has adopted a rule contradicting the
Pendatun Resolution." This assertion is based on the wrong
idea that in order that antagonism may exist between two
independent bodies, the attacks should be reciprocal and
bilateral, and it is not enough that one should rashly
invade the province of another. The theory is parallel with
the Japanese insistence in calling what they term "China
Incident" because China was not able to invade in her turn
the Japanese mainland of Honshu.
XXII. FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT

It is argued by the majority that conceding that the
petitioners' suspension is beyond the power of the
respondents, the petition should be denied, because for this
court to order the reinstatement of petitioners "would be to
establish judicial predominance, and to upset the classic
pattern of checks and balances wisely woven into our
constitutional setup." The argument is utterly fallacious.
There can be no more judicial predominance because the
Supreme Court, without shirking its responsibility, should
order that petitioners be reinstated in the full exercise of
their constitutional lights, functions and prerogatives, of
which they were deprived, in flagrant violation of the
fundamental law, than there will be legislative
predominance because Congress should refuse to be cowed
into prevarication in the exercise of its legislative powers,
or executive
294

Vera vs. Avelino
predominance because the President would not allow

denial of his executive functions. And the pattern of checks
and balances is not disrupted because the Supreme Court
should proceed to perform orm its judicial duty by granting
petitioners the legal redress to which they are entitled.
The indictment of volubility flung by Lord Bryce against
the Supreme Court of the United States, resulting from
"the political proclivities of the man who composed it," is
quoted by the majority in order to support the rule of
conduct that "adherence to established principle should
generally be our guiding criterion." We underline generally
because we prefer it to the word invariably, as, otherwise,
we will expose ourselves to the English author's
indictment, and with more reason if we should reverse the
doctrines and principles enunciated in the Angara case in
order not to displease a controlling majority in the Senate.
XXIII. NOT DEMIGODS OUTSIDE THE REACH OF LAW

Should respondents disobey any order we may issue in this
case, the majority ask, can we punish them for contempt?
Of course. They are not demigods, duces, fuehrers, or
nippon emperor divinities, who are outside of the reach of
law. They do not pretend that they are like the king of
France who said L'état c'est moi,
But, why should we render respondents the disservice of
entertaining the false hypothesis that they may disobey
any order we may legally issue? Our people were not crazy
enough to elect anarchists to our Senate.
XXIV. BUILT ON PRECARIOUS FOUNDATION

The majority insist, notwithstanding, in arguing that if we
should punish respondents f or contempt because they
should have disobeyed an order of ours, we would be
destroying the independence and equal importance of
legislative bodies under the Constitution. We would never
imagine that the independence and equal importance of
legislative bodies, under the Constitution, should be
precariously built upon the unstable and shifting quagmire
of
295
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 295

Vera vs. Avelino
immoral immunity to punishment for contempt, an offense

punishable under all modern systems of criminal law.
Dogmatizing ex cathedra, the majority preached that we
must "disabuse our minds from the notion that the
judiciary is the repository of remedies for all political and
social ills." Shooting in the dark of fantastic hobgoblins,
insuffiated with extraterrestrial life by supercreative
imagination, might be an amusing sport, but is misleading
in juridical controversy. No one has ever entertained the
false and laughable notion that the judiciary may afford
remedies "for all political and social ills." No one, unless he
be a paranoiac mogalomaniac, may pretend to be the happy
possessor of any political or social panacea. The argument
is irrelevant because, in the case, we are dealing with a
constitutional wrong which, under the f undamental law,
can and must be redressed by the judiciary.
XXV FLAGRANT INCONSISTENCY

A citizen, deprived of liberty by a resolution to incarcerate
him for years, illegally or unconstitutionally adopted by a
legislative chamber, according to the majority, may not be
denied relief by the courts and "may successfully ully apply
for habeas corpus, alleging the nullity of the resolution and
claiming for release," invoking as authorities Lopez vs. De
los Reyes (55 Phil., 170) and Kilbourn vs. Thompson (103
U. S., "168; 26 Law ed,, 377). The reason is because the
resolution is beyond the bounds of "the legislative power, is
a usurpation of functions belonging to courts, is an
infringement of the Constitution, which is precisely the
case of the Pendatun Resolution. But the majority would
then have only as defendant the officer or person holding
the victimized citizen in custody, which officer or person
might be a senator or a group of senators.
The majority's inconsistency can not be hidden.
XXVI. ELECTION CONTESTS—WRONG DEFINITION

The majority maintain that not all the powers of the House
or Senate as "the sole judge of the election, returns
296

Vera vs. Avelino
and qualifications of the members" thereof were transf
erred to the Electoral Commission, but only "all contests"
relating to said election, returns and qualifications. But the
use of the words "all contests" in the Constitution does not
affect or limit the transfer of all powers as "the sole judge of
the election, returns and qualifications" of the legislative
members, because these all powers have always been, from
the very beginning, circumscribed by the word "contests."
The very words "the sole judge" imply necessarily contests,
because if there is no contest, there is nothing to be judged.
The majority adhere to the following quotation: "As used
in the constitutional provisions, 'election contest' relates
only to statutory contests in which the contestants seek not
only to oust the intruder, but also to have himself inducted
into the office." (Laurel on Elections, 2d ed., p. 250; 20 C. J.,
58.) The assertion is wrong because there are election
contests in which the contestants do not seek to be
inducted into office, as when the contestants do not pretend
to have won in the election and, admitting that the
protestee obtained the majority votes, should, however, be
ousted because he is unqualified.
The example of a man, disqualified for having served a
long term of imprisonment, elected to either House of
Congress, is a good one not in support of the majority's
theory that the House may, upon its own authority,
investigate and exclude the disqualified person, but to
show that the election may be contested before the
corresponding Electoral Tribunal in a proper contest,
without the protestant seeking to be himself seated.
XXVII UNCONSTITUTIONAL THEORY

The majority's theory that an election contest does not
ensue when a member of the House raises a question as to
the qualification of another because the former does not
seek to be substituted for the latter, is based on the wrong
definition of an election contest, the one limiting it to cases
297
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 297

Vera vs. Avelino
wherein protestants seek also to have themselves inducted

into the contested office. Having for its basis a wrong
premise, the theory can.not be correct. The election
contests mentioned in section 11 of Article VI of the
Constitution include contests "relating to qualifications" of
the respective members of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives. To maintain that either House may
investigate and thereafter exclude a disqualified member,
is to maintain a constitutional heresy. An insistent effort to
justify and approve an action that violates elemental
standards of law and justice, such as the Pendatun
Resolution, may often lead one to advancing unwittingly
the most unexpected theories.
Invoking as authority the erroneous statement made by
one of the attorneys for petitioners during the oral
argument to the effect that the power to defer the oath
taking until the contest is adjudicated-does not belong to
the corresponding Electoral Tribunals, the majority
gleefully jumps to the conclusion that "then it must be held
that the House or Senate still retains such authority,
whether we believe that such power (to delay induction)
stemmed from the privilege of either House to be the judge
of the election, returns, and qualifications of the members
thereof, or whether we hold it to be inherent to every
legislative body as a measure of self-preservation."
Thus we see that the majority seem reluctant to accept
the new constitutional setup by the creation of the
Electoral Commission, later substituted by the Electoral
Tribunals. They would rather stick to the old order of
things when the majority of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives before the Commonwealth were the
absolute dictators of the election, returns and qualifications
of the members of the respective legislative chambers,
when they boldly assert that either House has "the
privilege to be the judge of the election, returns and
qualifications of the members thereof."
298

Vera vs. Avelino
XXVIII. THE CHARACTER AND PHYSIOGNOMY OF

THE CONSTITUTION
The discussions as to the character of the legislative power
vested in Congress gives way to a conf usion of ideas due
mainly to lack of discrimination between preconceived
constitutional ideas, ingrained in the mind during
university training, and the actual provisions of the
Constitution of the Philippines, which enjoy outstanding
and substantial advantages over older ones, because the
delegates to our constitutional convention embodied in it
new precepts and principles based on the lessons of one
century and a half experience of American and European
countries in constitutional government and four decades of
Philippine constitutional history and the last juridical and
ideological discoveries.
Whether the Constitution of the United States is only a
grant or delegation of legislative powers to the federal
government and the American state constitutions are mere
limitations of plenary powers of legislation, have nothing to
do with the true character and physiognomy of our own
Constitution which we must examine, not on the mirror of
other constitutions, but on the face of its own concepts,
precepts and provisions, and there we will see at once that
our Constitution is both a grant and a limitation of powers
of government decreed by our people, on whom sovereignty
resides and from whom all government authority
emanates. (Section 1, Article II of the Constitution.) The
sovereign people is the repository of all powers of
government, in fact, also political and social powers. From
them emanate, not only all government authority, but the
plenary and unlimited power of society which is the
foundation of government. Social order is established and
maintained by the will of the people. The people is the
absolute master of his own destiny. The people is the
holder of the universality and residuum of all human
powers. This being a natural conviction of humanity since
time immemorial
299
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 299

Vera vs. Avelino
although not always articulate and vocal, to justify the

absolutism of kings and emperors, it had been necessary to
create the fiction of the divine genesis of their authority,
imposed on the ignorance and religious credulity of
superstitious masses, so much so that in certain epochs of
history the positions of high priest and king were merged
in the same individual. And those who would attach to a
high officer or group of high officers of government, no
matter in what department, any kind of monarchial or
oligarchical absolutism, unlimited because placed above the
law and not controllable by the provisions of the
Constitution or any agency existing under its authority, are
only trying to perpetuate the worn-out tradition of the
divine origin of the despotic rulers of the past.
To our mind, no power of government may be exercised
by any branch, agency or officer thereof unless expressly or
implicitly granted by the people through the Constitution.
Subject to the limitations provided therein and in
accordance with express provisions, the residuum of
legislative, executive and judicial powers, respectively, are
vested in Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court
It is wrong to maintain that any legislative power is vested
exclusively in the Senate. The legislative power is vested in
Congress, composed of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, and not in any of its branches alone.
XXIX. RIZALIAN ADMONITION ON TOLERANCE

Although there is absolutely nothing in the report of the
Commission on Elections or in the Pendatun Resolution
itself which imputes upon petitioners any act of disorderly
behavior, it not appearing that they have anything to do
with alleged irregularities and terrorism in the four
provinces of Central Luzon, yet had the Senate elected to
deprive petitioners of their seat in the Senate under the
power to punish and expel a member for disorderly
behavior provided in sectcion 10 (3) of Articcle VI of the
Constitution, and the Senate adopted the Pendtun
Resolution in pursuance thereof, the majority of this court
would still
300

Vera vs. Avelino
dismiss the petition. It appearing that not two-thirds of all

the members of the Senate concurred or could concur in the
adoption of the Pendatun Resolution and, therefore, under
the constitutional provision invoked, the deprivation of
petitioners of their seat in the Senate would appear as a
flagrant transgression of the fundamental law, the majority
of this court would still shield respondents with the
palladium of judicial noli me tangere. Respondents must be
very extraordinary beings to enjoy such an immunity from
even the most shocking and tyranical violation of the
Constitution.
The majority would counsel prudence and comity and
admonish to heed the off-limits sign at the Congressional
hall, firm in the belief that "if a political fraud has been
accomplished, as petitioners aver, the sovereign people,
ultimately the offended party, will render the fitting
verdict—at the polling precinct."
We are reluctant to wash our hands so easily. We can
not remain comfortably seated in the highest tribunal of
the land nor reconcile with our conscience by abstaining to
give the relief we are duty bound to give to the victims of a
political fraud which constitutes a wanton trampling down
of the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution.
Let us not so easily forget the Rizalian admonition:
"Sufferance is not always a virtue; it is a crime when it
encourages tyrannies." Let us not disguise such kind of
resignation under the inoffensive name of judicial
prudence. Burke said: "There is also a false, reptile
prudence, the result not of caution, but of fear." Fear, as
favor, should not have place in judicial vocabulary.
XXX. CONSTITUTIONALISM
The present nuclear physics is a far cry from the more than
twenty-five centuries old theory enunciated by Democritus
in the following words: "By convention sweet is sweet, by
convention bitter is bitter, by convention hot is
301
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 301

Vera vs. Avelino
hot, by convention cold is cold, by convention color is color.

But in reality there are atoms and the void. That is, the
objects of sense are supposed to be real and it is customary
to regard them as such, but in truth they are not. Only the
atoms and the void are real."
The heated controversy between Ptolemy and
Copernicus, the discoveries of Galileo and Newton, are just
small incidents in the perenmal struggle in which man is
engaged to be, through science, fully acquainted with the
truth about our universe. It takes 1,600 years for one-half
of a gram of radium to disintegrate, and it takes one second
for light to travel 186,300 miles; formerly matter and
energy were essentially different things, but now solid
matter is but concentrated energy, and energy has weight;
it is not yet answered whether light is wave or a shower of
photons, but it is known that it can be weighed. The theory
of relativity, opened new vistas in the panorama of science,
but new riddles meet man in the great adventure to the
unknown. Albert Einstein said:
"Yet new, still more difficult problems arise which have not been
definitely settled as yet. We shall mention only some of these
unsolved problems. Science is not and will never be a closed book.
Every important advance brings new questions. Every
development reveals, in the long run, new and deeper difficulties."
(The Evolution of Physics, p. 308.)
All theories which, in their day, served useful scientific

purposes, had to give way to others giving better
explanations of physical phenomena. The prevailing
theories may not resist the onslaught of new intellectual
discoveries, but because they may eventually be discarded
themselves is no reason to dispense with them when, in the
meantime, they are the only ones that can satisfy reason.
Otherwise, science will be crippled. Paralysis will keep her
from new advances.
By the same token, in the history of law, man had to
stick in each epoch to the known as the best of legal
institutions. In the millennia of human lif e no more
wonderf ul legal in-
302

Vera vs. Avelino
stitution was devised by man than constitutionalism, the

evolution of which is one of the most inspiring chapters of
history. A mere religious concept, giving voice to moral law,
in Israel, a philosophical concept, merely normative, in
Greece, it was in republican Rome where it took a definite
legal and political force as the basis of jurisdictio as
distinguished from gobernaculum, the reason of the law as
opposed to the power of government. In England for the
common law to prevail over the prerogative of the crown it
took several hundred years of bitter struggle. But fate had
it that in America is where the evolution of
constitutionalism had to reach its highest accomplishment.
It became the basis of the government of the United States
f rom its very inception. Now constitutionalism for the
world is envisaged as the only hope of humanity to attain
the goal that will insure juridical order for the world, so
that men's inventions, including those ominous on nuclear
energy, may be placed under adequate social control.
The hope of the Republic of the Philippines lies also on
constitutionalism. Not the one that would merely offer lip
service to the Constitution, but that would make of that
document as one of the living tissues of our body politic,
absolutely indispensable to its own existence.
XXXI. THE MOST VITAL ISSUE

The validity of the Constitution is the most vital issue
involved in this case. If no one must be allowed to be above
the law, with greater reason no one should be allowed to
ignore or to trample upon the provisions and mandates
sacred by all persons living under the pale of the Republic
of the Philippines, and not rocked of as an insignificant
pushpin to toy with.
Burning with the thirst of immortality, shepherd
Erostratus burned the temple of Ephesus to gain a berth in
history. Let us not make of the Constitution of the
Philippines another temple of Ephesus. It is much better to
be buried in the dust of eternal oblivion than to
permanently
303
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 303

Vera vs. Avelino
live in the memory of f uture generations as guilty of arson,

as rivals of the barbaric hordes who destroyed the great
works of art of Greece and Rome, or the contemporary
vandals who destroyed without any compunction churches
and schools, treasures of noble human institutions, or other
works wherein the loftiest ideals and aspirations of men
have blossomed with imperishable grandeur and beauty.
Let us spare the Constitution from the deleterious effects of
our prejudices and from the ravages of blind passions. Let
us keep it as an undying beacon of hope, the indestructible
foundation of our national existence, the inexpugnable
citadel of the rights and liberties of our people, the eternal
rock upon which the Republic of the Philippines shall
forever subsist with dignity,
The pamphlet in which it is printed may wizen and
shrivel, its paper rived into shreds, the shreds pulverized
into dust and ashes, and these reduced into infinitesimal
atoms which will finally scatter in the wide universe, to
form new substances. But the juridical sense of our people,
crystallized in that pamphlet and permeating that paper,
embodied in the great document, like the mythological
phoenix of Arabia, undergoing the five hundred years cycle
of resurrection, shall again and again rise in youthful
freshness from the scattered ashes and atoms, the undying
symbol of the spirit of the law, the flaming banner of
justice, the magnificent expression of the undaunted will-
power to live,
The petition must be granted, and the preliminary
injunction of May 29, 1946, must be reissued and made
perpetual.
BRIONES, M., disidente:
Después de las elecciones generales de 23 de abril, 1946, en

que fueron elegidos el Presidente y Vice Presidente de
Filipinas y los miembros del Congreso, el Senado y la
Cámara de Representantes inauguraron su período de
sesiones reuniéndose por primera vez el 25 de mayo. Uno
de los primeros documentos que se leyeron en el Senado fué
la 3
304

Vera vs. Avelino
proclama expedida por la Comisión sobre Elecciones cuyo

texto íntegro se transcribe a continuación:
"CERTIFICATE OF CANVASS BY THE COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS OF RETURNS OF VOTES FOR THE
OFFICE OF SENATOR AND PROCLAMATION OF
THE CANDIDATES ELECTED IN THE ELECTION
HELD ON APRIL 23, 1946.
"We, the undersigned, constituting the Commission on Elections,

do hereby certify that, pursuant to the provisions of section 11 of
Commonwealth Act No. 725, we have made the canvass of the
votes cast in the Philippines for the office of Senator in accordance
with the statements submitted by the Provincial Board of
Canvassers of the different provinces and the City Board of
Canvassers of Manila and that the result thereof shows the
following sixteen (16) registered candidates to have received the
highest number of votes:
Name of candidates Votes

received
1. Vicente J. Francisco 735,671
..............................................
2. Vicente Sotto 717,225
.........................................................
3. Jose Avelino 708,420
..........................................................
4. Melecio Arranz 666,700
.....................................................
5. Ramon Torres 640,477
.......................................................
6. Tomas Confesor 627,354
...................................................
7. Mariano Jesus Cuenco 623,650
.........................................
8. Carlos P. Garcia 617,542
....................................................
9. Olegario Clarin 611,227
......................................................
10. Alejo Mabanag 608,902
......................................................
11. Enrique B. Magalona 591,796
............................................
12. Tomas Cabili 589,762
........................................................
13. Jose O. Vera 588,993
.........................................................
14. Ramon Diokno 583,598
.....................................................
15. Jose E. Romero 563,816
....................................................
16. Salipada Pendatun 557,156
................................................
"In view of the above result, we hereby proclaim that the

abovenamed sixteen (16) registered candidates are the duly
elected Senators in the election held on April 23, 1946.
"We further certify that Vicente J. Francisco, Vicente Sotto,
Jose Avelino, Melecio Arrans, Ramon Torres, Tomas Confesor,
Mariano Jesus Cuenco and Carlos P. Garcia received the first
eight (8) highest number of votes, and that Olegario Clarin, Alejo
Mabanag, Enrique B. Magalona, Tomas Cabili, Jose O. Vera,
Ramon Diokno, Jose E. Romero and Salipada Pendatun received
the next eight (8) highest number of votes.
305
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 305

Vera vs. Avelino
We further certify that the attached statement of votes shows the

number of votes polled by each candidate for the Office of Senator
in the Philippines by provinces.
In witness whereof, we have signed these presents in the City
of Manila, this 23rd day of May, 1946.
(Sgd.) "JOSE LOPEZ VITO
Chairman
(Sgd.) "FRANCISCO ENAGE

Member
I concur in toto, except as regards the proclamation of the 16

Senators-elect, on the basis of the canvassing of all the votes cast
in their favor, without excluding those of Central Luzon.
(Separate opinion prepared.)
(Sgd.) "VICENTE DE VERA
"Member"
Acto seguido procedióse a la elección del Presidente del

Senado saliendo elegido como tal el candidato del partido
de la mayoría Hon. José A. Avelino que obtuvo 10 votos
contra el candidato del partido de la minoría Hon. José O.
Vera que obtuvo 8. Tanto el Sr. Vera como sus
correcurrentes Sres. Diokno y Romero tomaron parte en la
votación.
Elegido el Presidente se iba a proceder a la toma del
juramento colectivo de los Senadores electos, pero en el
Senador Hon. Salipada Pendatun presentó para su
aprobación un proyecto de resolución cuyo texto también se
transcribe íntegro a continuación:
"WHEREAS, the Commission on Elections, charged under the

Constitution with the duty of insuring free, orderly, and honest
elections, in the Philippines, reported to the President of the
Philippines on May 23, 1946, that
"On election day, altho no acts of violence were officially reported to this
Commission in connection with the elections, we were advised by our
representative in Nueva Ecija that ballot boxes were stolen by armed
bands in the barrios of the municipalities of Bongabon, Gapan, Sta. Rosa
and Guimba. These incidents are still under investigation by the Military
Police Command. After the election we cannot fail to notice the reports
306

Vera vs. Avelino
published in the newspapers on the attacks that have been made by
armed bands upon persons or groups of persons who were known to have
voted for candidates other than the candidates of those armed elements.
Even the report submitted to this Commission by the Provost Marshal
General on May 20, 1946, * * * contains a recital of incidents of terrorism
that occurred in the four provinces of Central Luzon herein above
mentioned which disturbed or affected the national election in an
undesirable manner. Reports also reached this Commission to the effect
that in the provinces of Bulacan, Pampanga, Tarlac and Nueva Ecija, the
secrecy of the ballot was actually violated; that armed bands saw to it
that their candidates were voted for; and that the great majority of the
voters, thus coerced or intimidated, suffered from a paralysis of judgment
in the matter of exercising the right of suffrage. Considering all those
acts of terrorism, violence and intimidation in connection with elections
which are more or less general in the provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac,
Bulacan and Nueva Ecija, this Commission believes that the election in
the provinces aforesaid did not reflect the true and free expression of the
popular will. It should be stated, however, that the Commission is
without jurisdiction, to determine whether or not the votes cast in the
said provinces which, according to these reports have been cast under the
influence of threats or violence, are valid or invalid. Suffice to state that
in accordance with the provision of Article 1, section 2, of the
Constitution, "The Commission on Elections shall have exclusive charge
of the enforcement and administration of all laws rea-tive to the conduct
of elections and shall exercise all other functions which may be conferred
upon it by law. It shall decide—save those involving the right to vote—all
administrative ques-tions, affecting elections, including the
determination of the number and location of polling places, and the
appointment of election inspectors and of other election officials * * *"
and that the question of whether or not a vote has been cast legally or
illegally is not for this Commission to determine. The matter is therefore
being brought to the attention of the President and Congress of the
Philippines for such action as may be deemed proper pursuant to the
requirements of the Constitution that this Commission submit after
every election a report to the said offices on the manner the election was
conducted.'
"WHEREAS, the minority report of the Hon. Vicente de Vera,

member of the Commission on Elections, says among other things,
that 'we know that as a result of this chaotic condition, many
residents of
307
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 307

Vera vs. Avelino
the four provinces have voluntarily banished themselves from

their home towns in order not to be subjected to the prevailing
oppression and to avoid being victimized or losing their lives;' and
that after the election dead bodies had been found with notes
attached to their necks, reading: 'Bumoto kami kay Roxas' (We
voted for Roxas);
"WHEREAS, the same Judge De Vera says in his minority
report that in the four provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac, Bulacan
and Nueva Ecija, the worst terrorism reigned during and after the
election, and that if the elections held in the aforesaid provinces
were annulled as demanded by the circumstances mentioned in
the report of the Commission, Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno, and
Jose Romero, would not and could not have been declared elected;
"WHEREAS, in his report to the Provost Marshal, Col. Amando
Dumlao, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, attached to the report of
the Commission on Elections, states among other things, that 'all
the members of the Church of Christ (Iglesia ni Cristo) were
intimidated and coerced, some kidnapped and murdered' by the
HUKBALAHAPS 'because they had expressed their opinion that
they were going to vote for President-elect Manuel A. Roxas'; that
because of terrorism and coercion 'a great many barrio people
have evacuated their respective places and signified their
intention not to vote'; and that ballot boxes were taken away from
barrios San Miguel, Pasong Isip, Pakap, Guimba and Galvan, and
that in some instances election inspectors were kidnapped;
"WHEREAS, the terrorism resorted to by the lawless elements
in the four provinces mentioned above in order to insure the
election of the candidates of the Conservative Wing of the
Nacionalista Party is of public knowledge and that such terrorism
continues to this day; that before the elections Jose O. Vera
himself declared as campaign manager of the Osmeña f action
that he was sorry if Presidential Candidate Manuel A. Roxas
could not campaign in Huk provinces because his life would be
endangered; and that because of the constant murders of his
candidates and leaders, Presidential Candidate Roxas found it
necessary to appeal to American High Commissioner Paul V.
McNutt for protection, which appeal American High
Commissioner personally referred to President Sergio Osmeña for
appropriate action, and the President in turn ordered the
Secretary of the Interior to afford the necessary protection, thus
impliedly admitting the existence and reign of such terrorism;
"WHEREAS, the Philippines, a Republic state, embracing the
principles of democracy, must condemn all acts that seek to defeat
the popular will;
"WHEREAS, it is essential in order to maintain alive the
respect for democratic institutions among our people, that no man
or group of men be permitted to profit from the results of an
election held
308

Vera vs. Avelino
under coercion, in violation of law, and contrary to the principle of

freedom of choice which should underlie all elections under the
Constitution;
"WHEREAS, protests against the election of Jose O. Vera,
Ramon Diokno and Jose Romero, have been filed with the
Electoral Tribunal of the Senate of the Philippines on the basis of
the findings of the Commission on Elections above quoted;
Philippines in session assembled, as it hereby resolves, to defer
the administration of oath and the sitting of Jose O. Vera, Ramon
Diokno and Jose Romero, pending the hearing and decision on the
reports lodged against their elections, wherein the terrorism
averred in the report of the Commission on Elections and in the
report of the Provost Marshal constitute the ground of said
protests and will therefore be the subject of investigation and
determination."
Parece que cuando se puso a debate la resolución arriba

transcrita, el Senado acordó unánimemente transferir la
discusión para la sesión del lunes siguiente, 27 de mayo. Ya
se estaba discutiendo otro asunto cuando surgió un
acalorado incidente en virtud del cual los Senadores de la
minoría salieron todos del salón de sesiones, quedándose
allí solamente el Presidente Avelino con sus once (11)
compañeros de la mayoría. Se alega que en esta ocasión,
ausentes los Senadores minoritarios y sin el necesario
quorum legal para poder seguir despachando asuntos, los
Senadores de la mayoría, revocando el acuerdo anterior de
transferencia, decidieron considerar y aprobar la resolución
sin más debate.
Tales son, a grandes rasgos, los hechos que han dado
lugar a la demanda que directa y originariamente plantean
ante este Tribunal Supremo los recurrentes José O. Vera,
Ramón Diokno y José Romero, y cuya parte petitoria es
como sigue:
"POR LO TANTO, los recurrentes respetuosamente piden a este

Honorable Tribunal y a cualquier Magistrado del mismo, tenga a
bien expedir un interdicto prehibitorio preliminar dirigido a los
recurridos, sus funcionarios, empleados, agentes y demás
personas que obran en su ayuda, ordenándoles que hasta nueva
orden del Tribunal, desistan y se abstengan de poner en ejecución
la resolución arriba mencionada, y de impedir a los recurrentes
continuen en sus asientos en
309
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 309

Vera vs. Avelino
el Senado y ejerzan libremente sus funciones y derechos como

senadores de Filipinas, deshaciendo todo lo hecho en contrario
hasta esta fecha; que acorte los términos de contestación; que una
vez contestada esta demanda, designe un Comisionado para
recibir las pruebas, con instrucciones de que la haga sin
dilaciones, y que, previa la vista correspondiente, dicte sentencia
declarando enteramente nula y de ningún valor la citada
resolución, y prohibiendo consecuentemente a los recurridos y a
cada uno de ellos a impedir a los recurrentes a continuar en sus
asientos en el Senado de Filipinas y a ejercer libremente sus
cargos como senadores, y prohibiéndoles igualmente a realizar
cualquier otro procedimiento ulterior para ejecutar la resolución
citada, con las costas. Los recurrentes piden también cualquier
otro remedio justo y equitativo."
El magistrado Perfecto concedió el interdicto preliminar

pedido principalmente en virtud de la alegación expuesta
en el párrafo 10 de la demanda, en el sentido de que la
resolución cuestionada tenía por objeto, entre otras cosas,
"la realización de fines siniestros, tales como la aprobación,
sin la fiscalización e intervención de los recurrentes, del
Bill Bell, de una medida de reorganización judicial
terrorista para el personal de la judicatura y de otras
semejantes, y para doblegar a los recurrentes por tal
hitlérico procedimiento a los manejos de tal mayoría."
Sometido el interdicto preliminar a la Corte en pleno, ésta
lo aprobó en una votación de seis (6) contra cuatro (4), y al
propio tiempo lo señalo a vista para la determinación de la
cuestión de si su expedición estaba o no justificada. En
dicha vista que duró 6 horas seguidas, desde la mañana
hasta la tarde (una de las más largas si no la más larga que
se haya celebrado jamás en los anales de esta Corte),
arguyeron extensamente tanto la representación de los
recurrentes como la de los recurridos. El Procurador
General Tañada compareció y arguyó en nombre de estos
últimos, pero limitándose en su informe a cuestionar e
impugnar la jurisdicción de este Supremo Tribunal para
conocer y enjuiciar el asunto bajo el principio de la
separación de poderes que informa nuestra Constitución.
Puede decirse sin exageración que el tema se agotó
discutiéndose con minuciosidad los puntos constitucionales
y jurídicos planteados en el
310

Vera vs. Avelino
asunto. Después de la vista esta Corte en pleno, con la sola

ausencia del Magistrado Jaranilla, y con la disidencia del
Magistrado Perfecto, acordó disolver el interdicto
prohibitorio preliminar mediante la siguiente orden:
"Considering that the preliminary injunction was issued in the

case of Jose O. Vera et al., petitioners, vs. Jose Avelino,
respondents, (G. R. No. L-543), to preserve the status quo and
thus prevent the execution of the acts alleged under oath in the
last part of paragraph X of the petition, without the intervention
of the petitioners; and taking into consideration that this court,
after hearing both parties, at any rate believes and trusts that the
respondents will not carry out said acts during the pendency of
this proceeding, this court, without deciding whether or not the
said injunction was justified, hereby resolves to dissolve it in the
meantime, without prejudice to whatever action or decision this
court may take or render on the questions involved in this case
including that of jurisdiction."
Resulta evidente de autos que las cuestiones que tenemos

que considerar y resolver son las siguientes: (1) a la luz de
nuestra Constitución y de nuestras leyes ¿ es legal y
sostenible la resolución objeto de controversia, en cuanto
por ella se priva a los recurrentes de sus asientos en el
Senado de Filipinas, y de los derechos, privilegios y
prerrogativas anejos a dichos asientos?; (2) a la luz de
nuestra Constitución y de nuestras leyes ¿tiene este
Tribunal Supremo jurisdicción y competencia para conocer,
enjuiciar y decidir el asunto?
"Primera cuestión.—A la luz de nuestra Constitución y de

nuestras leyes, ¿es legal y sostenible la resolución objeto de
controversia, en cuanto por ella se priva a los recurrentes de sus
asientos en el Senado de Filipinas, y de los derechos, privilegios y
prerrogativas anejos a dichos asientos?"
Antes de la aprobación de la primera Constitución del

Commonwealth de Filipinas (1935), la Legislatura era e)
juez de las elecciones, actas y condiciones de sus propios
miembros. La disposición original relativa a esta materia
era la contenida en la Ley del Congreso de los Estados
Unidos de 1.° de julio de 1902 (Ley Orgánica, artículo 7,
párrafo 5), la cual preceptuaba que "La Asamblea (Fili-
311
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 311

Vera vs. Avelino
pina) decidirá de las elecciones, su resultado y las

calificaciones de los representantes * * *." Cuando se
aprobó la Ley del Congreso de 1916 (Ley Jones, de amplia
autonomía, sección 18, párrafo 1), la citada disposición se
reincorporó, con una modificación que la hacía más enfática
hisertándose la palabra "único," a saber: "Que el Senado y
la Cámara de Representantes, respectivamente, serán los
únicos jueces de las elecciones, del resultado, escrutinio y
condiciones de sus miembros electivos * * *." Esta
disposición no era de ningún modo original: no hacía más
que transplantar a este país la tradición y el sistema
americano provisto en la cláusula 1.a de la sección 5 del
Artículo I de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos, que
dispone que "cada Cámara será juez de las Elecciones,
Actas y Condiciones de sus propios miembros * * *."
La Asamblea Constituyente convocada en 1934 para
redactar la Constitución de nuestro Commonwealth pudo
haber seguido sobre esta materia diferentes cursos de
acción: reafirmar la tradición americana vigente en este
país desde 1902; o seguir el ejemplo de algunos países—
verbigracia, Canada, Australia, Hungria y Polonia—que
habían trasladado esta facultad de las Cámaras
Legislativas al departamento judicial, hablando más
concretamente, al Tribunal Supremo; o bien instituir un
sistema mixto, creando un cuerpo constitucional separado e
independiente, con jurisdicción exclusiva sobre la materia.
La Asamblea Constituyente optó por este último creando
"una Comisión Electoral que se compondrá de tres
Magistrados del Tribunal Supremo que serán designados
por su Presidente, y de seis diputados escogidos por la
Asamblea Nacional, tres de los cuales serán designados por
el partido que tuviere en ella el mayor número de votos, y
tres por el partido que le siga en el mayor número de votos.
Esta Comisión Electoral será presidida por el Magistrado
más antiguo y conocerá exclusivamente de todas las
controversias relativas al resultado de la elección y a las
calificaciones de los miembros de la Asamblea Nacional"
(Artículo IV,
312

Vera vs. Avelino
Constitución de Filipinas, 1935). Cuando la Constitución se

reformó en 1940 restaurándose la legislatura bicameral, la
filosofía ía de la comisión electoral se respetó y conservó en
la Constitución reformada y en lugar de una comisión se
crearon dos, una para cada cámara, y ya no se llamaba
Comisión Electoral sino Tribunal Electoral, como para
recalcar y subrayar el carácter judicial del nuevo
organismo. El precepto constitucional pertinente es como
sigue:
"SEC. 11. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each
have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of
their respective members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be
composed of nine members, three of whom shall be Justices of the
Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the
remaining six shall be members of the Senate or of the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen by each
House, three upon nomination of the party having the largest
number of votes and three of the party having the second largest
number of votes therein. The senior Justice in each Electoral
Tribunal shall be its Chairman."
De lo expuesto resulta evidente que una importante

facultad judicial que tenían las cámaras legislativas
anteriormente—la facultad de actuar como jueces sobre las
elecciones, actas y calificaciones de sus miembros—ha
quedado eliminada completamente bajo la actual
Constitución y traspasada también completa y plenamente
al nuevo organismo constitucional—el Tribunal Electoral.
La pregunta ahora en orden es si la resolución cuestionada
que para mayor claridad llamaremos Resolución Pendatun
representa o constituye, por parte de los Senadores
recurridos, el ejercicio de una facultad constitucional que
no les pertenece sino al Tribunal Electoral, y nuestra
contestación es decididamente afirmativa. Con esa
resolución en la mano es como si los recurridos hubieran
dicho a los recurrentes lo siguiente: "Señores, aquí tenemos
un informe de la Comisión sobre Elecciones en donde se
dice que en cuatro provincias del centro de Luzón no ha
habido sufragio libre, sincero y ordenado, por los actos de
intimidación y violencia de vuestros partidarios. Sin los
votos de esas provincias, vosotros no
313
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 313

Vera vs. Avelino
hubiérais triunfado. Por tanto, hasta que se decida en

vuestro favor las protestas formuladas contra vuestras
actas ante el Tribunal Electoral, os negamos el derecho de
jurar, de sentarse en estos escaños, de participar en las
deliberaciones del Senado y de gozar de los derechos,
prerrogativas y privilegios anejos al cargo de Senador."
¿Qué es esto sino una innegable usurpación de la facultad
exclusiva que tiene el Tribunal Electoral de ser el único
juez de las controversias relativas a la elección actas y
calificaciones de los miembros de la cámara a que
corresponde dicho tribunal?
Se arguye que independientemente de la cuestión
electoral cada cámara, para proteger su existencia, su buen
nombre y su decoro, tiene el poder inherente de suspender
a cualquier miembro suyo; que la Resolución Pendatun se
inspiró en estos motivos; que la suspension de los
recurrentes es un acto político que nada tiene que ver con
la determinación de sus actas por el Tribunal Electoral y no
se halla sujeto a revision de parte del departamento
judicial por cuestionable que fuera el mismo desde el punto
de vista del derecho o de la moral pública; y que, por tanto,
no hay tal usurpación de poderes constitucionales, no
habiéndose los recurridos entrometido en la esfera de
acción del Tribunal Electoral. Sin embargo, no hay más que
leer la resolución en cuestión para convencerse de que su
entera motivación se deriva de las elecciones de 23 de Abril,
dán-dose en ella por establecido, en virtud del informe de la
Comisión sobre Elecciones, que el triunfo de los recurrentes
se debió a un estado de terror y violencia en las Provincias
de Pampanga, Tárlac, Nueva Ecija y Bulacán. Los "por
cuantos" de la resolución hacen referencia a las supuestas
anomalías e irregularidades que viciaron el sufragio en
dichas provincias; hacen ciertas afirmaciones de carácter
general como la de que Filipinas, a fuer de nación y estado
democrático, debe condenar todo acto tendente a derrotar
la voluntad popular, y la de que "para mantener vivo entre
nosotros el respeto a las instituciones democráticas, a
ningún hombre o grupo de hombres se debe permitir que
re-
314

Vera vs. Avelino
porten beneficio de los resultados de una elección llevada a

cabo bajo coercion"; y al final se dice "Por cuanto, sobre la
base de los informes arriba citados de la Comisión sobre
Elecciones se han formulado protestas ante el Tribunal
Electoral del Senado contra la elección de José O. Vera,
Ramón Diokno y José E. Romero"; y luego la parte
dispositiva en virtud de la cual se priva a los recurrentes
del juramento y de sus asientos en el Senado entre tanto no
se resuelvan las protestas formuladas contra sus actos,
interregno que puede durar meses y hasta años. De todo
esto resulta bien claro que los considerandos de la
resolución versan precisamente sobre los mismos hechos
electorales cuya determinación incumbe exclusivamente al
Tribunal Electoral, y que la interdicción, o mejor dicho, la
suspension de los derechos, prerrogativas y privilegios de
los recurrentes se basa indudablemente en tales
considerandos. No hay en la resolución ni la más mínima
insinuación de que se haya aprobado por altos motivos de
dignidad y decoro senatorial—eso que algún tratadista
llama gráficamente medida de profilaxis—como para evitar
el roce deshonroso con miembros que f ueran algo así como
de la casta despreciable de los intocables, aquejados de
lepra moral en sus personas. No hay ni el menor cargo de
torpeza moral contra los recurrentes, ni siquiera se insinúa
que éstos fueron directa o indirectamente responsables del
alegado estado de terror y violencia. La conclusión
indeclinable, pues, es que la Resolución Pendatun enjuicia
y resuelve cuestiones o "issues" puramente electorales,
aceptando prima facie un informe incompetente sobre
terrorismo, violencias y fraudes, y como tal constituye una
intromisión en la facultad que bajo la Constitución tiene el
Tribunal Electoral del Senado de ser el único juez de las
controversias relativas a la elección actas y calificaciones
de los miembros de dicho alto cuerpo colegislador.
Pero admitamos por un momento que la Resolución
Pendatun tiene ese carácter profiláctico que le atribuyen a
última hora; que, contra lo que es evidente y claro con
315
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 315

Vera vs. Avelino
claridad meridiana, esa resolución nada tiene que ver con

la determinación judicial de las actas de los recurrentes por
el Tribunal Electoral. La pregunta otra vez en orden es la
siguiente: sometida la Resolución Pendatun a la piedra de
toque de nuestra Constitución ¿ puede resistir con éxito la
prueba? Nuestra contestación es terminantemente
negativa. La Constitución filipina es el producto de la
sabiduría, experiencia y genio político de nuestro pueblo.
No es un documento enteramente original: en ciencia
política las concepciones originales no abundan. Hemos
volcado en ella no sólo el resultado de nuestra experiencia
necesariamente limitada, sino lo que hemos aprendido de la
sabiduría y experiencia de otros pueblos más avanzados
que nosotros, particularmente del pueblo Americano, con el
cual nos ha ligado una convivencia de cerca de medio siglo.
Después de largas y laboriosas deliberaciones nuestra
Asamblea Constituyente, elegida por el pueblo (1934-1935),
adoptó el sistema presidencial de gobierno dividido en tres
altos poderes, independientes entre sí pero coordinados en
un mecanismo cuidadosamente elaborado de frenos y
contrapesos. Esos poderes son: legislativo, ejecutivo y
judicial. Sus altas facultades y funciones se hallan
especificadas en la Constitución, en capítulos separados.
En el uso del lenguaje se ha evitado la minuciosidad, el
pormenorismo característico de las leyes ordinarias, a fin
de hacer del instrumento suficientemente amplio y flexible
para acomodarse y para subvenir a las necesidades y
condiciones cambiantes de los tiempos; pero, con todo, los
trazos, los lineamientos son suficientemente claros, firmes
y seguros, y creemos puede decirse sin inmodestia que en
concisión, en claridad y en buen ordenamiento nuestra
Constitución no cede a ninguna de las constituciones
escritas que se conocen.
Examinemos ahora el departamento o poder legislativo
que es lo que nos concierne e interesa en el presente
asunto. Es un principio constitucional bien establecido que
el poder de legislar es ilimitado en tanto en cuanto no
pugna con la Constitución, la cual opera como una
limitación. Todos los demás poderes y facultades que no
tengan carácter legislativo deben ser conferidos expresa o
implícitamente.
316

Vera vs. Avelino
Nuestro Congreso, actuando concurrentemente por medio

de sus dos cámaras, tiene el poder de legislar. "El poder
legislativo queda investido en un Congreso de Filipinas,
compuesto de un Senado y de una Cámara de
Representantes (Artículo VI, sección 1, Constitución de
Filipinas, 1940). Pero además de este poder de conjunto,
cada cámara tiene ciertas facultades, entre ellas algunas de
carácter disciplinario, a saber: (a) la de compeler la
asistencia de miembros ausentes en la forma y bajo las
penas que dicha cámara prescriba; (6) la de castigar a sus
miembros por conducta desordenada, y, con la concurrencia
de dos terceras partes de sus miembros, expulsar a un
miembro por tal motivo (Artículo VI, sección 19, ap. 2 y 3).
Fuera de estas facultades no hay en nuestra Constitución
ninguna otra que autorice la imposición de un castigo o
pena, o envuelva una privación de derechos, prerrogativas
y privilegios, siquiera sea temporal, tal como la que se
provee en la Resolución Pendatun. ¿ Encaja esta resolución
en cualquiera de las facultades arriba enumeradas?
Evidentemente que no, No encaja en el inciso (a)—la
facultad de compeler disciplinariamente la asistencia de
miembros ausentes—porque es superfluo decir que no se
trata ni remotamente de tal caso. Tampoco encaja en el
inciso "6" porque se ha admitido desde el comienzo que el
caso que nos ocupa no es el de conducta desordenada de un
miembro Tampeco encaja en la facultad de determinar y
resolver la legalidad y solvencia de las actas y credenciales
de los recurrentes porque ya hemos demostrado hasta la
saciedad que habiéndose retirado totalmente de las
cámaras la substancia, la esencia de esa facultad
trasladándola al Tribunal Electoral, quedó también ipso
facto retirada y eliminada la facultad de suspender que es
nada más que un incidente. un aledaño de la substancia.
Pero se dice: el Tribunal Electoral no tiene la facultad de
suspender, ésto se halla admitido por todo el mundo, luego
esa f acultad ha quedado, por lo menos, en las cámaras
como residuo no afectado por el traspaso de jurisdicción
317
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 317

Vera vs. Avelino
sobre las credenciales y actas electorales. Sin embargo, ésto
no es más que una hábil sutileza. En la Constitución no
hay más que dos categorías de poderes: el expreso o el
implícito (either by express grant or by fair implication
from what is granted). Como quiera que esa reserva, ese
residuo (la facultad de suspender) no está conferido
expresamente en la Constitución, luego hay que suponerlo
implícito. Pero ¿ implícito de qué? Tiene que ser de algo de
un poder más general y más amplio expresamente
conferido (parte de un todo) que en este caso tendría que
ser el poder de conocer y resolver las controversias
electorales sobre las actas de los miembros del Congreso.
Es así que este poder ya no lo tienen las cámaras bajo la
Constitución; luego tampoco queda nada implícito en ellas,
so pena de sostener que lo implícito, que es nada más que
un incidente, puede subsistir por sí solo sin la substancia—
el vaso esencial que lo envuelve y entraña. El corolario
forzoso de todo ésto es que los redactores de la Constitución
filipina eliminaron por completo la facultad de suspender
no sólo del Congreso sino del Tribunal Electoral; que la
voluntad soberana del pueblo expresada en el código
fundamental, es que ningún protestado sería privado de su
asiento ni por un solo minuto; que ninguna presunción se
establecería en contra de la legitimidad y solvencia de su
acta; que solamente una sentencia final podría cerrarle las
puertas del Congreso. No tenemos porque averiguar si con
esta decision la Asamblea Constituyente quiso erigir un
firme valladar a los excesos y demasías de la pasión política
creando un clima propicio para el desarrollo de las minorías
en un país en que, como el nuestro, ciertas causas y
circunstancias han retardado el turno periódico y saludable
de los partidos; todo lo que nos incumbe hacer es señalar y
destacar el hecho inexorable, la volición constitucional.
Se han citado dos casos de nuestra jurisprudencia
parlamentaria para justificar la Resolución Pendatun: el
caso de José Fuentebella en el Senado de Filipinas, en
1916, y el caso de Nicolás Rafóls en la Cámara de
Representantes,
318

Vera vs. Avelino
en 1925. Bajo la alegación de haberse cometido graves

irregularidades y fraudes en las primeras elecciones
senatoriales celebradas en el 6.° distrito (provincias
bicolanas) al candidato electo José Fuentebella se le negó
prima facie el juramento y el asiento pendiente la
resolución de la protesta formulada contra su acta. Lo
mismo se hizo en el caso de Nicolás Rafóls, por alegados
fraudes electorales cometidos en el 6.° distrito diputacional
de Cebu. Pero la endeblez e inaplicabilidad de estos
precedentes salta inmediatamente a la vista si se tiene en
cuenta que cuando se establecieron las cámaras legislativas
eran constitucionalmente los únicos jueces de la elección,
actas y calificaciones de sus miembros; así que la
suspension prima facie del juramento y del asiento no fué
más que un incidente en el ejercicio de esa facultad; y,
prescindiendo de si esto era justo o injusto, prudente o
arbitrario, parecía incuestionable que estaba dentro los
poderes y facultades de las cámaras el hacerlo.
Pero, en realidad, los casos de Fuentebella y Raf óls
pueden citarse para un efecto completamente opuesto al
perseguido por los abogados de los recurridos cuando se
analizan y discuten amplia y objetivamente los motivos,
circunstancias y designios que indujeron a nuestra
Asamblea Constituyente a abandonar la bien arraigada
tradición americana de hacer de las cámaras legislativas
los únicos jueces de la elección, actas y califtcaciones de sus
miembros, trasladando la jurisdicción a un organismo
constitucional completamente separado e independiente.
Un análisis de este género viene a ser altamente revelador
y expresivo. Lo primero que embarga la atención del
observador es que cuando se adoptó esta reforma f
undamental y original por la Asamblea Constituyente
dominaba en Filipinas un partido político fuerte, denso,
acaudillado por una personalidad genial, brillante,
dinámica y poderosa. Ese partido acababa de ganar en
unas elecciones apasionadísimas y muy reñidas una
victoria espectacular, abrumadora, que le daba el dominio y
control de todos los resortes de la vida política no sólo en la
nación sino hasta en las provincias y municipios. Ese
partido dominaba naturalmente también la Con-
319
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 319

Vera vs. Avelino
vención Constitucional, la Asamblea Constituyente. ¿ Qué

hizo ese partido en medio de su omnipotencia? ¿Le
emborrachó ese peligroso licor de los dioses—el licor de la
victoria, el licor del poder? No. Ese partido, sus caudillos,
resolvieron ser generosos, ser justos, ser prudentes, ser
democráticos, y lo fueron; determinaron pensar en términos
de humanidad, en términos de nación, en términos de
justicia pero justicia de verdad, en términos de libertad y
democracia, y lo hicieron tal como lo pensaron. Podían
haber escrito una constitución a su talante—una
constitución que sirviese sus propios fines, que asegurase
su perpetuidad en el poder. No lo hicieron. Y no solamente
no lo hicieron, sino que hicieron algo más algo
extraordinario, inconcebible, juzgado a la luz y según la
norma usual del egoismo de los partidos. Teniendo en sus
manos un poder enorme, formidable, sumamente tentador,
el poder de resolver las controversias electorales sobre las
actas de los miembros de la Legislatura, renunciaron a ese
poder para alojarlo en un cuerpo constitucional separado e
independiente, el cual es prácticamente un tribunal de
justicia: la Comisión Electoral, hoy Tribunal Electoral. La
determinación de hacer este cuerpo lo más apolítico posible
se denota en el hecho de que sus miembros legislativos
están distribuidos en igual número 3-3, de suerte que los 3
Magistrados componen el factor decisivo.
¿ Por qué los redactores de la Constitución, y, sobre todo,
por qué el partido político mayoritario pudo hacer esta
renuncia de la que pocos ejemplos hay en la historia
política del mundo? No parece difícil imaginarse los
motivos, las causas, sobre todo para uno que como el autor
de esta opinion tuvo algo que ver, siquiera muy
modestamente, con las tareas de la Asamblea
Constituyente. El pueblo filipino estaba empeñado en una
suprema, altísima tarea—la de estructurar el Estado, la de
escribir el código fundamental de la nación no sólo para los
10 años del Commonwealth sino para la República que se
proclamariá después de dicho período de tiempo. Todo el
mundo sabía que la suerte de la democracia en Filipinas
dependía principalmente de
320

Vera vs. Avelino
la Constitución que se escribiera, no sólo en su letra sino en

su espíritu y, sobre todo, de la forma y manera como ella
moldearía, penetraría e influiría en la vida cotidiana del
pueblo y del individuo. Desde luego no éramos unos ilusos,
utopistas, perfeccionistas; no aspirábamos ni mucho menos
a crear un trasunto de la república ideal de Platón; pero
deseábamos hacer lo mejor posible dadas nuestras
circunstancias y limitaciones, dada nuestra historia y
tradiciones, y dado el temperamento y genio político y
social de nuestro pueblo. Se había acuñado y popularizado
por aquel tiempo la frase "justicia política" para denotar la
clase de justicia convencional que cabía esperar en relación
con las protestas electorales planteadas ante las cámaras
legislativas. No sólo se aceleraba o demoraba el despacho
de las mismas a ritmo con los dictados de ciertas
conveniencias de taifa o grupo, sino que no pocas veces el
complejo político o personal era el factor determinante en
las resoluciones y decisiones que se tomaban. Todo esto lo
sabían los delegados a la asamblea constituyente, lo sabían
los líders de los partidos, lo sabían los escritores y
pensadores dedicados al estudio de las ciencias políticas y
sociales.
En la Convención había delegados que eran miembros
actuales y pasados de la Legislatura, hombres que sabían
por propia experiencia como se resolvían las protestas
electorales en las cámaras legislativas y que, además,
sabían por sus lecturas lo que sobre el particular ocurría en
otros países. Allí estaba, como delegado, Nicolás Rafols—
actor del drama político que determinó uno de los
precedentes parlamentarios que se citan—acaso rumiando
todavía en su fuero interno el agravio contra lo que
reputara arbitrariedad cometida por la mayoría en su caso.
¿ Qué de extraño había que en medio de tal "background",
en medio de tal ambiente ideológico se formara una fuerte
opinion en favor de un cambio de sistema, en favor de un
arbitrio constitucional que sustituyera la llamada "justicia
política" una justicia de verdad, una "justicia judicial?" Así
se creó la Comisión Electoral. Nada mejor que las
siguientes palabras del malogrado Magistrado Abad San-
321
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 321

Vera vs. Avelino
tos en su luminosa opinion concurrente en el celebrado

asunto de Angara contra Comisión Electoral, para definir el
carácter del sistema: "El objeto que se trataba de obtener
con la creación de la Comisión Electoral no era crear un
cuerpo que estuviera por encima de la ley, sino el elevar las
elecciones legislativas de la categoría de cuestiones políticas
a te de justiciables." (Angara contra Comisión Electoral, 63
Jur. Fil., 151, 200.) Y el ponente en dicho asunto el
Magistrado Laurel se explaya más todavía con los
siguientes pronunciamientos que no tienen desperdicio:
"Los miembros de la Convención Constitucional que planearon

nuestra ley fundamental eran, en su mayor parte, hombres de
edad madura y de experiencia. A buen seguro muchos de ellos
estaban familiarizados con la historia y desarrollo político de otros
países del mundo. Por tanto, cuando creyeron conveniente crear
una Comisión Electoral como un organismo constitucional y lo
invistieron con la exclusiva función de conocer y fallar las
controversias electorales, actas y condiciones de los miembros de
la Asamblea Nacional, debieron de haberlo hecho así, no
solamente a la luz de su propia experiencia, sino también
teniendo en cuenta la experiencia de otros pueblos ilustrados del
mundo. La creación de la Comisión Electoral fué planeada para
remediar ciertos males que conocían los autores de nuestra
Constitución. No obstante la tenaz oposición de algunos miembros
de la Convención a su creación, el proyecto como antes se ha
dicho, fué aprobado por ese cuerpo mediante una votación de 98
contra 58. Todo cuanto se puede decir ahora sobre la aprobación
de la Constitución, la creación de la Comisión Electoral es la
expresión de la sabiduría y 'la justicia esencial al pueblo'.
(Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, marzo 4, 1861.)
"De las deliberaciones de nuestra Convención Constitucional
resulta evidente que el objeto era traspasar en su totalidad toda
la facultad previamente ejercitada por la Legislatura en asuntos
pertenecientes a protestas electorales de sus miembros, a un
tribunal independiente e imparcial. Sin embargo, no fué tanto el
conocimiento y apreciación de precedentes constitucionales
contemporáneos como la ha tiempo sentida necesidad de fallar
protestas legislativas, libres de prejuicios partidistas lo que
impulsó al pueblo, obrando por medio de sus delegados a la
Convención, a establecer este Cuerpo que se conoce por Comisión
Electoral. Con estas miras, se creó un cuerpo en el que tanto el
partido de la mayoría como el de la minoría están igualmente
representados para contrarrestar la influencia partidista en sus
deliberaciones, y dotado, además, de carácter judicial mediante
322

Vera vs. Avelino
la inclusion entre sus miembros de tres magistrados del Tribunal

Supremo.
"La Comisión Electoral es una creación constitucional,
investida de las facultades necesarias para el cumplimiento y
ejecución de las funciones limitadas y específicas que la ha
asignado la Comisión. Aunque no es un Poder en nuestro
Gobierno tripartito, es, para todos los fines, cuando obra dentro de
los límites de su autoridad, un organismo independiente. Se
aproxima más ciertamente, al Departamento Legislativo que a
cualquiera otro. El lugar que ocupa la disposición legal (artículo 4)
que crea la Comisión Electoral en el Título VI, titulado
'Departamento Legislativo' de nuestra Constitución, es muy
significativo. Su composición es también significativa por cuanto
está constituída por una mayoría de miembros de la Legislatura.
Pero es un cuerpo separado e independiente de la Legislatura.
"La concesión de facultades a la Comisión Electoral para
conocer de todas las controversias relativas a las elecciones, actas
y condiciones de los miembros de la Asamblea Nacional, tiene por
objeto hacer que esas facultades sean tan completas y queden tan
incólumes como si hubieran continuado originalmente en la
Legislatura. El haber expresamente investido de esas facultades a
la Comisión Electoral, es una negativa tácita del ejercicio de esas
facultades por la Asamblea Nacional. Y esto es una restricción tan
eficaz a las facultades legislativas como una prohibición expresa
contenida en la Constitución (Ex parte Lewis, 45 Tex. Crim. Rep.,
1; State vs. Whisman, 36 S. D., 260; L. R. A., 1917B, 1). * * *"
(Angara contra Comisión. Electoral, 63 Jur. Fil., 151, 188-190.)
Acaso se pueda decir algo más todavía acerca de los
motivos que indujeron la creación de la Comisión Electoral;
acaso se pueda aventurar la afirmación de que con este
cuerpo los redactores de la Constitución, los caudillos de los
partidos se propusieron asegurar por todos los medios y
garantías la vida y crecimiento de la democracia en
Filipinas. Democracia es esencialmente libre discusión de
los asuntos públicos, de los problemas de la comunidad;
libre expresión del pensamiento y de la opinion. De esto se
sigue necesariamente un régimen basado en la existencia
de una mayoría que gobierna y de una minoría que aspira a
gobernar entretanto que vigila los actos del gobierno en su
doble papel de censor y de aspirante al poder. La mejor
piedra de toque para apreciar y juzgar la calidad de un
regimen político es la manera y forma como trata a las
mino-
323
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 323

Vera vs. Avelino
rías y oposiciones. Un gobierno totalitario, despótico, las

liquida, las ahoga; un gobierno democrático no sólo las
respeta, sino que crea para ellas un clima vital propicio.
Mirado en este sentido el Tribunal Electoral es un
instrumento de minorías por antonomasia: la idea básica
de su creación es el desposeer a las mayorías del poder de
destruir, de aniquilar a las minorías mediante lo que
cínicamente se ha denominado "justicia política," e impartir
a las minorías las máximas garantías de una justicia de
verdad—una "justicia judicial." El delegado Vicente J.
Francisco, ahora "Floor-Leader" de la mayoría en el
Senado, pronunciando su discurso a favor de la reforma en
la Asamblea Constituyente, dijo entre otros conceptos las
siguientes significativas palabras: "Many have criticized,
many have complained against the tyranny of the majority
in electoral cases * * *" (Aruego, The Framing of the
Philippine Constitution, tomo I, pág. 263). Por eso es un
absurdo sostener que la facultad de suspender utilizada
mediante la Resolución Pendatun haya quedado en el
Congreso como residuo, independientemente de la
jurisdicción exclusiva del Tribunal Electoral para resolver
protestas electorales legislativas. Ello equivaldría a
sostener que los redactores de la Constitución pusieron un
remedio para derrotarlo al propio tiempo mediante una
puerta reservada y trasera por la que podría escurrirse el
pequeño monstruo de la "justicia política". Este juego
infantil no podían haberlo hecho los redactores de la
Constitución, los líders de los partidos que tuvieron alguna
responsabilidad en la redacción de dicho documento. ¿ Qué
más? Esa facultad para suspender equivale prácticamente
a una carta blanca para intervenir y estorbar las
actuaciones y procedimientos del Tribunal Electoral,
provocando suspicacias, creando anticipadamente
prejuicios no sólo en la mente del público sino de los
miembros mismos, empequeñeciendo, en una palabra, el
prestigio del tribunal. ¿Cómo se puede pensar que la
Asamblea Constituyente permitiera y posibilitara ese
resultado antijudicial, reservando algo al Congreso en un
traspaso de facultades que se consideraba total, absoluto e
incondicional? Los tribunales
324

Vera vs. Avelino
ordinarios de justicia están por ley protegidos contra todo

estorbo y obstrucción a sus funciones. El Tribunal Electoral
—criatura de la misma Constitución—tiene, por lo menos,
iguales si no mejores títulos a esa impermeabilidad, mejor
todavía a esa inmunidad contra toda obstrucción y
entorpecimiento. El hecho de que la intromisión venga del
Congreso o de una de sus cámaras no puede ser una
justificación.
Las deliberaciones de la Asamblea Constituyente
arrojan buena luz sobre el espíritu del precepto que nos
ocupa. Que el traspaso de facultades fué total, absoluto;
que al Congreso no se reservó ninguna facultad, mucho
menos la de suspender, en toda cuestión relativa a la
elección de sus miembros, lo denotan bien claro ciertas
observaciones, que a estas alturas resultan proféticas, del
Delegado Manuel Roxas, uno de los liders más autorizados
de la Asamblea Constituyente, hoy primer Magistrado de la
nación. El Sr. Roxas estaba contestando varias
interpelaciones sobre el alcance del nuevo sistema
propuesto. Replicando al Delegado Ventura no parece sino
que el Sr. Roxas presintiera la Resolución Pendatun o actos
semejantes a ella cuando dijo lo siguiente: "* * * Además, si
Ia Asamblea desea anular el poder de la Comisión
(Electoral), puede hacerlo así mediante ciertas maniobras
en su primera sesion cuando se someten las actas a la
Asamblea. El objeto es dar a la Comisión Electoral todo el
poder ejercitado por la Asamblea referente a las elecciones,
actas y condiciones de sus miembros" (véase Angara contra
Comisión Electoral, supra, pág. 179). Ese todo de que habla
el Sr, Roxas excluye la idea de cualquier reserva o residuo
dejado a las cámaras del Congreso.
Se dice, sin embargo, en la opinion de la mayoría que los
debates en la Asamblea Constituyente sobre el precepto
constitucional de que se trata demuestran que la intención
de los redactores de la Constitución no fué el entregar todo
a la Comisión Electoral (ahora Tribunal Electoral), sino que
se le confirió solamente la facultad de ser "the sole
325
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 325

Vera vs. Avelino
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and

qualifications of the members of the National Assembly."
Es decir—se arguye—que cuando no hay "contest" o
contención las cámaras tienen la facultad de entender y
juzgar de "la elección, actas y cualificaciones de sus
miembros". Esto se desprende, según la ponencia, del hecho
de que mientras el "draft" o proyecto original decía lo
siguiente:
"The elections, returns and qualifications of the members of the

National Assembly and all cases contesting the election of any of
its members shall be judged by an Electoral Commission * * *."
la redacción final del proyecto quedó como sigue:

* * * * * * * * *
"The Electoral Commission shall be the sole judge of all contests

relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
members of the National Assembly."
Se asevera enfáticamente en la opinion de la mayoría que

la supresión de la primera parte de la cláusula es harto
significativa. Ello demuestra, se dice, que la cláusula tenía
dos partes con significados distintos: la primera parte,
relativa a casos no contenciosos, y la segunda referente a
casos contenciosos. La eliminación de la primera parte
venía a reducir consiguientemente la jurisdicción de la
Comisión Electoral a los casos contenciosos, reservándose
los no contenciosos a las cámaras. Y para probar esta tesis
a primera vista deslumbrante se transcribe en la ponencia
una larga tirada del diario de sesiones de la Asamblea
Constituyente—tirada que, en verdad, ofrece ciertos
equívocos y ambigüedades. Pero ésto no es más que un
aspecto del cuadro.
Esto nos obliga a revisar y examinar toda la parte del
diario de sesiones que abarca los debates sobre el
particular. Afortunadamente, las discusiones fueron
amplias, plenas de información y detalle, y sobre todo
llevadas muy inteligentemente. El Delegado Manuel Roxas,
ahora Presidente de Filipinas, era quien sostenía el lado
afirmativo, esto es, el precepto original tal como lo había
sometido el llamado Comité de Siete y tal como queda
transcrito
326
Vera vs. Avelino
en el párrafo anterior. Un grupo de Delegados, encabezado

por el Hon. Alejo Labrador, de Zambales, estaba
fundamental y decididamente opuesto a la formula. Estos
Delegados no aceptaban la reforma propuesta, querían que
se conservase el antiguo sistema por virtud del cual las
cámaras eran los jueces exclusivos de la elección, actas y
cualificaciones de sus miembros. Acaso sea pertinente
consignar el hecho de que si bien es verdad que los partidos
(anti y pro) habían declarado una tregua patriótica y
saludable en sus luchas dentro de la Convención, el Sr.
Roxas pertenecía al partido minoritario—el de los pros—
mientras que el Sr. Labrador era de la mayoría, el partido
fuerte y poderoso de los antis cuyo indiscutible líder era el
entonces Presidente del Senado Sr. Quezon. La oposición
del Sr. Labrador y compañeros se fundaba principalmente
en la teoría de la separación de poderes: ellos creían que la
reforma era demasiado radical, que la misma venía a
mermar grandemente el poder y prestigio del
departamento legislativo, reduciéndolo a un estado de
inferioridad y vasallaje, particularmente al poder judicial,
en virtud de la intervención de miembros de la Corte
Suprema en la composición de la Comisión o Tribunal
Electoral. Acaso sea pertinente decir también que entre los
ardientes patrocinadores de la reforma figuraban
distinguidos Delegados de la mayoría entre ellos el Hon.
Vicente J. Francisco, de Cavite, en la actualidad Senador
de Filipinas.
Veamos ahora el proceso de como se enmendó el "draft"
original del precepto. Las siguientes interpelaciones
arrojan copiosa luz sobre la cuestión.
"Delegate VENTURA. We have a doubt here as to the scope of the

meaning of the first four lines, paragraph 6, page 11 of the draft
reading: 'The elections, returns and qualifications of the members
of the National Assembly and all cases contesting the election of
any of its members shall be judged by an electoral Commission * *
V I should like to ask f rom the gentleman f rom Capiz whether
the election and qualification of the members whose election is not
contested shall also be judged by the Electoral Commission.
"Delegate ROXAS. If there is no question about the election of
the member, there is nothing to be judged; that is why the word
'judge'
327
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 327

Vera vs. Avelino
is used to indicate a controversy. If there is no question about the
election of a member, there is nothing to be submitted to the
Electoral Commission and there is nothing to be determined.
"Delegate VENTURA. But does that carry the idea also that
the Electoral Commission shall confirm also the election of those
whose election is not contested?
"Delegate ROXAS. There is no need of confirmation. As the
gentleman knows, the action of the House of Representatives in
confirming the election of its members is just a matter of the rules
of the Assembly, It is not constitutional. lt 19 not necessary. After
a man (adviértase bien esto) files his credentials that he has been
elected, that is sufficient, unless the election is contested."
(Arruego, The Framing of the Philippine Constitution, pp. 267,
268.)
Como se ve, lo que lo preocupaba al Delegado Ventura era

que con la fraseología indicada la Comisión Electoral
tuviera jurisdicción y competencia hasta sobre las
credenciales no protestadas; parece que se temía esta
ambigüedad. Pero ni el Delegado Ventura ni nadie en la
Convención tuvo jamás en la mente la idea de que la
fraseología envolvía una dual jurisdicción: una, de parte de
la Asamblea Nacional, sobre las credenciales no
protestadas; y otra, de parte de la Comisión Electoral, sobre
las credenciales protestadas. Y el Delegado Roxas, con sus
contestaciones, estableció bien claramente que la cláusula,
tal como estaba redactada, presuponía necesariamente un
"contest," una controversia, así que se empleaba la palabra
"judge"; y el "contest," el litigio tenía que ser enjuiciado
naturalmente por la Comisión Electoral.
De la última contestación del Delegado Roxas transcrita
arriba se deduce incuestionablemente que el no admitía la
posibilidad de que la Asamblea Nacional rehusase su
confirmación a una credencial no protestada o contendida.
Èl sostenía que esta confirmación no era constitucional, no
era necesaria. Por eso el dijo categóricamente: "After a man
files his credential, that is sufficient, unless the election is
contested." Aplicado este criterio al caso que nos ocupa,
equivale a lo siguiente: Después de haberse presentado al
Senado las credenciales de los recurrentes Sres. Vera,
Diokno y Romero (a ello monta el certificado de
proclamación
328

Vera vs. Avelino
expedido por la Comisión sobre Elecciones), ello era

bastante, a menos que su elección fuese cuestionada, y
cuestionada legalmente, esto es, protestada debidamente
ante el Tribunal Electoral.
El pensamiento del Delegado Roxas se aclaró más
contestando otras interpelaciones. Èl dijo positiva y
terminantemente, replicando al Delegado Cinco, que no
había ninguna diferencia entre la primera y segunda parte
de la cláusula; que, en realidad, los casos de elecciones
contendidas ya están incluídos en la frase "the elections,
returns and qualifications," y que la frase "and contested
elections" se insertó meramente para los efectos de mayor
claridad.
* * * * * * * *
"Delegate CINCO. Mr. President, I have a similar question as
that propounded by the gentleman from Ilocos Norte (Mr.
Ventura) when I arose a while ago. However, I want to ask more
questions from the Delegate from Capiz. This paragraph 6 on
page 11 of the draft cites cases contesting the election as
separated from the first part of the section which refers to
elections, returns and qualifications.
"Delegate ROXAS. That is merely for the sake of clarity. In fact
the cases of contested elections are already included in the phrase
'the elections, returns and qualifications.' This phrase 'and
contested elections' was inserted merely for the sake of clarity.
"Delegate CINCO. Under this paragraph, may not the
Electoral Commission, at its own instance, refuse to confirm the
election of the members?
"Delegate ROXAS. I do not think so unless there is a protest."
(Arruego, id., p. 269.)
Pero hay todavía una cosa más importante. En realidad,

esta misma cuestión due nos ocupa ya se planteó en
aquellos debates y la solución que entonces se le dió cuadra
perfectamente con el criterio que sostenemos en esta
disidencia. El Delegado Labrador, líder, como ya se ha
dicho, de los opositores a la reforma, hizo al Delegado
Roxas algunas interpelaciones que parecían hechas en
anticipación a los presentes acontecimientos. He aquí el
diálogo Roxas-Labrador:
"Delegate LABRADOR. Does not the gentleman from Capiz

believe that unless this power is granted to the Assembly, the
Assembly on
329
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 329

Vera vs. Avelino
its own motion does not have the right to contest the election and
qualification of its members?
"Delegate ROXAS. I have no doubt that the gentleman is right.
If this draft is retained, as it is, even if two-thirds of the Assembly
believe that a member has not the qualifications provided by law,
they cannot remove him for that reason.
"Delegate LABRADOR. So that the right to remove shall only
be retained by the Electoral Commission.
"Delegate ROXAS. By the Assembly for misconduct.
"Delegate LABRADOR. I mean with respect to the
qualifications of the members.
"Delegate ROXAS. Yes, by the Electoral Commission.
"Delegate LABRADOR. So that under this draft, no member of
the Assembly has the right to question the eligibility of its
members?
"Delegate ROXAS. Before a member can question the
eligibility, he must go to the Electoral Commission and make the
question heard before the Electoral Commission.
"Delegate LABRADOR. So that the Electoral Commission shall
decide whether the election is contested or not contested.
"Delegate ROXAS. Yes, sir; that is the purpose." (Aruego, idem,
pp. 269, 270.)
Este diálogo Roxas-Labrador nos da la mejor clave para

interpretar el precepto. Labrador preguntó si bajo el mismo
la Asamblea tenía derecho a cuestionar, de su propia
iniciativa (on its motion), la elección y cualificación de sus
miembros; Roxas contestó que NO, que "aunque dos
terceras partes de la Asamblea creyeran que un miembro no
tenía las cualificaciones provistas por la ley, ellos no
podrían removerle por tal razón".
Labrador volvió a preguntar inquiriendo sobre quién
tenía el derecho de remover. Roxas contestó: la Asamblea
Nacional por mala conducta (for misconduct); y la Comisión
Electoral, con respecto a las cualificaciones de los miembros
de la Asamblea.
Y cuando Labrador volvió a remachar preguntando si un
miembro de la Asamblea Nacional podría, bajo el precepto
que se discutía, cuestionar la elegibilidad de sus miembros,
Roxas contestó categóricamente que "antes de que un
miembro pudiera cuestionar la elegibilidad (de otro) debía
ir a la, Comisión Electoral y hacer que la cuestión se oyera
ante la Comisión Electoral." Es decir que, aplicado este
330

Vera vs. Avelino
criterio al caso que nos ocupa, ni el Senador Pendatun, ni

ningún otro Senador, ni nadie tenía derecho a cuestionar la
elegibilidad de los recurrentes Sres. Vera, Diokno y Romero
ante el Senado, sino que el asunto debía llevarse
direclamente al Tribunal Electoral y hacer que éste lo
enjuiciara.
Pero se preguntará: ¿ entonces por qué se reformó el
"draft" o proyecto original eliminando la primera cláusula y
dejando sólo la segunda, o sea la frase "all cases contesting
the elections, returns and qualifications," etc. etc? Es
verdad, se hizo la enmienda, pero la misma no es
sustancial, no afecta al fondo del precepto, no involucra el
espíritu del sistema tal como lo definió y explicó el
Delegado Roxas en sus luminosas respuestas a las diversas
interpelaciones, particularmente las dadas al Delegado
Labrador. Se aceptó la enmienda más bien por razones
puramente psicológicas, esas que conoce bien todo aquél
que este familiarizado con la mecánica de los parlamentos y
asambleas deliberativas. Por un lado, el Delegado Roxas
veía que había ciertas dudas con respecto al alcance del
proyecto tal como estaba fraseado; pero, por otro lado, él
decía que esas dudas carecían de fundamento, que las dos
cláusulas del precepto tenían un mismo significado, que la
segunda ya estaba contenida en la primera y se insertaba
tan sólo para fines de claridad. Así que, hábil estrategia
parlamentario, creyó que podía aceptar perfectamente la
enmienda, entre cuyos proponentes (esto es muy
significativo, como se verá más adelante) figuraba por
cierto el Delegado Rafóls, pues con ello no perdía nada, no
comprometía ni un ápice de su posición, y en cambio
ganaba mucho, atraía el apoyo de los indecisos, aseguraba
la aprobación del precepto en la votación final, derrotando
a los que estaban fundamentalmente opuestos al mismo
como, en efecto, los derrotó por 98 votos contra 56. Que la
enmienda no era sustancial y de ningún modo afectaba al
sistema, así lo declaró categóricamente el Sr. Roxas
cuando, defiriendo a una sugestión del Presidente Recto de
la Convención, definió el alcance del cambio diciendo que
era "tan sólo para obviar la objeción apuntada
331
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 331

Vera vs. Avelino
por varios delegados en el sentido de que la primera

cláusula del 'draft' que dice The election, returns and
qualifications of the members of the National Assembly'
parece dar a la Comisión Electoral el poder de determinar
hasta la elección de los miembros que no han sido
protestados." Es decir, que lo único que se quiso aclarar y
establecer fuera de toda duda con la enmienda es que el
poder de la Comisión Electoral no podía extenderse a las
credenciales no protestadas, pero jamás se pensó que el
efecto de la enmienda era el desgajar este poder de la
Comisión Electoral para dejarlo como un residuo en la
Legislatura; en otros términos, jamás se imaginó que con la
enmienda la Asamblea Nacional todavía podría ser juez de
las credenciales no protestadas de sus miembros. He aquí
las palabras textuales del Sr. Roxas:
"The difference, Mr. President, consists only in obviating the

objection pointed out by various delegates to the effect that the
first clause which states 'The election, returns and qualifications
of the members of the National Assembly' seems to give to the
Electoral Commission the power to determine also the election of
the members who have not been elected. And in order to obviate,
we believe that the amendment is right in that sense * * * that is,
if we amend the draft so that it should read as follows: 'All cases
contesting the election, etc.,' so that the judges of the Electoral
Commission will limit themselves only to cases in which there has
been a protest against the returns."
No pudo haberse concebido jamás la peregrina, fantástica

idea de que el "draft" enmendado dejaba a la Asamblea
Nacional la facultad de enjuiciar la elección actas y
cualificaciones de los miembros" contra los cuales no
existiera ninguna protesta ante la Comisión Electoral, por
al sencilla razón de que ello engendraría las siguientes
anomalías: (a) la creación de dos jueces: uno, para
credenciales no protestadas—la Asamblea Nacional, o
Congreso; y otro, para credenciales protestadas—la
Comisión o Tribunal Electoral; (6) en un momento dado,
una mayoría sin escrúpulos, viendo peligrar el poder en sus
manos después de unas elecciones reñidísimas, podría dar
un golpe de mano mediante
332

Vera vs. Avelino
la estratagema de hacer que sus candidatos derrotados se

inhiban de protestar ante el Tribunal Electoral a fin de dar
lugar a que el Congreso actúe directamente sobre el caso,
con la mira de ajusticiar a los candidatos minoritarios
triunfantes bajo la guillotina de lo que el cinismo de los
descreidos ha llamado justicia política de las mayorías; (c)
ocurriría la paradoja de que las credenciales no protestadas
estarían en peor situación que las protestadas, porque
mientras estas últimas tendrían el beneficio de una justicia
de verdad, la justicia judicial del Tribunal Electoral,
aquéllas caerían bajo la justicia política de las mayorías,
sedientas de sangre adversaria. Es indudable que, como
hemos dicho en otra parte de esta disidencia, la Asamblea
Constituyente no podía ser parte en un juego infantil como
éste y el Delegado Roxas, con su seriedad, con su bien
conocida madurez política, con su devoción a la causa de la
libertad y democracia, de ningún modo podía ser
corresponsable de un precepto constitucional que pudiera
dar lugar a tan tremendas anomalías. Y ¿qué decir del
Delegado Rafóls? ¿Cómo se puede concebir que, con sus
tristes reminiscencias de la justicia política de las
mayorías, diera su patrocinio a una enmienda que pudiera
producir tales consecuencias?
Para remachar la tesis de que cada cámara de nuestro
Congreso todavía retiene la facultad de determinar "la
elección, las actas y las cualificaciones de sus miembros" en
casos en que no hay protesta, la mayoría propone en su
opinion el siguiente ejemplo: "Es elegido por un distrito
congresil un hombre que había servido previamente 10
años en las Prisiones de Bilibid, por estafa. Como no tuvo
contrincante (¡ este hombre debía de ser muy popular!),
ninguna protesta se formula contra su elección. Y
naturalmente el Tribunal Electoral no adquiere jurisdicción
sobre el caso, pues no hay 'contest' o controversia. Una vez
informada del hecho ¿ no puede la Cámara, motu propio,
suspender la toma de su juramento? ¿ No puede la Cámara
investigarle y después excluirle? Se observará que cuando
un miembro de la Cámara suscita una cuestión res-
333
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 333

Vera vs. Avelino
pecto a las cualificaciones de otro, de ello no se sigue un

pleito electoral, pues ninguno pretende sustituir a este
último."
Parecería que estábamos excusados de replicar a este
argumento por dos razones: primera, porque evidentemente
el ejemplo propone un caso que es completamente distinto
del que nos ocupa, pues los recurrentes no están acusados
de estafa ni de nada que afecta a su carácter, y su caso,
como ya hemos dicho, es de motivación enteramente
electoral, es decir, relacionada con la forma como fueron
elegidos que se dice viciada por actos de violencia y
terrorismo de sus partidarios; y segunda, porque si bien es
verdad que el ejemplo es meramente hipotético, plantea,
sin embargo, un caso que puede perfectamente ectamente
ocurrir y parecería que ni esta Corte ni ningún miembro
suyo debería adelantar su opinion sobre semejante
hipótesis susceptible de realizarse. Pero como del ejemplo
se pretende hacer argumento aquiles, no tenemos más
remedio que comentarlo y discutirlo.
Ante todo se deben deslindar bien los conceptos. El
derecho o facultad de expulsar a un miembro de una
cámara legislativa (Artículo VI, sección 10, ap. 3,
Constitución de Filipinas) es una cosa bien diferente del
derecho de rehusar la admisión de uno para ser miembro
de dicha cámara. En esto último las cuestiones envueltas se
refieren princi-palmente, tal vez exclusivamente, a las
cualificaciones constitucionales de aquellos que se
presentan para ser admitidos como miembros, o bien a la
regularidad y legalidad de las elecciones en que fueron
elegidos; mientras que en lo primero, esto es, en lo que toca
a la expulsion, lo que da lugar a la acción es el carácter
personal o conducta de la parte afectada (Willoughby, On
the Constitution of the United States, tomo 1.°, pág. 611).
En el ejemplo que propone la mayoría la condena por
estafa no es cosa que guarda relación con las cualificaciones
constitucionales del congresista o Representante electo ni
con la regularidad y legalidad de las elecciones en que salió
victorioso, por cierto sin ningún contrincante. Es cosa que
afecta a su carácter personal o conducta. Por tanto, no
334

Vera vs. Avelino
cabe discutir su derecho a ser admitido como miembro de la

cámara; el reune las cualificaciones constitucionales
(ciudadanía, edad, etc.) para ser Representante y la
limpieza de su elección está admitida. Así que,
parafraseando al Delegado Roxas, la "presentación de su
credencial de que ha sido elegido, es bastante para que sea
admitido como miembro." Pero ¿ la condena por estafa? ¿
No puede la cámara por este motivo investigarle y excluirle
como elemento no deseable?—pregunta la mayoría. Esta es
otra cuestión Ya hemos visto que el derecho de admisión es
una cosa, y el derecho de expulsion, otra. El derecho de
expulsion, por mala conducta, lo tienen las cámaras
independientemente del Tribunal Electoral. Ya lo dijo el
Delegado Roxas, contestando al Delegado Labrador: la
facultad de remover, en tratándose de la "elección, actas y
cualificaciones de los miembros," la tiene la Comisión o
Tribunal Electoral, previa protesta; la facultad de remover,
por mala conducta, la tiene la Asamblea (Congreso).
Pero examinemos el ejemplo de la estafa que plantea la
mayoría hasta sus últimas consecuencias. Willoughby dice
que sobre este respecto el punto principal de controversia
es si los actos de mala conducta objeto de queja deben ser
sólo los subsiguientes a la elección y que afecten a la
dignidad del Congreso y al debido desempeño de sus f
unciones, o deben ser también los anteriores. "Respecto de
los actos de los miembros electos cometidos con
anterioridad a su elección se ha argumentado fuertemente
que las Cámaras no deben tenerlos en cuenta, pues se debe
conceder que los electores tienen el derecho de elegir a
quienes quieran para representarles en el Congreso, y se
debe presumir que han tenido en cuenta el carácter y la
conducta de aquéllos a quienes eligen."
"A disregard of the foregoing doctrine, it has been urged, operates
as a denial to the States of a right or privilege constitutionally
provided for them. Thus, we find James M. Beck, former Solicitor
General of the United States, declaring: 'lt seems too clear for
argument, that each States has the right to select from its people
any representative in the Senate (or the House) that it sees fit,
irrespec
335
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 335

Vera vs. Avelino
tive of his intellectual or moral qualifications (provided he

possesses the qualifications specified in the Constitution), * * *.' A
state may have selected a member of the Senate or secured his
nomination by unworthy means. He may be intelectually unfitted
for the high office, and his moral character may, in other respects,
leave much to be desired. The people of the United States may
justifiably think that the States has sent to Congress an unfit
man, who could add nothing to its deliberations, and whose
influence might well be pernicious. None the less, the States has
the right to send him. It is its sole concern, and to nullify its
choice is to destroy the basic right of a sovereign State, and
amounts to a revolution" (Willoughby, idem, pp. 611, 612).
"El primer precedente—añade el autor citado—de que,

como base para expulsion, los actos cometidos antes de la
elección no deben ser considerados, fué en el caso del
Senador Humphrey Marshall, en 1796, quien fué acusado
de que había cometido perjurio. El Senado en este caso se
negó a tomar jurisdicción para determinar si, de hecho,
Marshall había sido reo de un delito, a pesar del hecho de
que el pidió que el Senado investigase y determinase el
caso" (supra, p. 612). Parece que en estos casos el criterio
general y predominante es que el sufragio popular es como
una especie de Jordan que lava con sus aguas purificadoras
todos los pecados cometidos antes de la elección Es como si
al pueblo se le supusiera investido de la facultad suprema
de indultar totalmente a sus favoritos por medio de la
balota electoral.
Se insinúa que los recurridos tenían la facultad de
adoptar la Resolución Pendatun en virtud del principio de
que todo cuerpo legislativo tiene el poder inherente de
adoptar reglas para su organización, funcionamiento y
preservación Se cita la práctica legislativa de que al
inaugurarse un cuerpo deliberativo se forma un comité de
credenciales que examina los certificados o títulos que
presentan los miembros para su admisión. Dicho comité
rinde su informe recomendando la aprobación o
desaprobación de las credenciales. No puede sostenerse una
tesis más peligrosa que ésta. Las cámaras legislativas son
más muchísimo más que una cámara de comercio, por
ejemplo. Los legisladores
336

Vera vs. Avelino
son funcionarios constitucionales. Sus cualificaciones, la

investidura y el ejercicio de su cargo, el término del mismo,
están definidos y amparados por la Constitución mediante
preceptos y disposiciones que operan como limitaciones
constitucionales sobre el poder legislativo en general. Esos
preceptos y disposiciones no se pueden enmendar o derogar
mediante una ley ordinaria, mucho menos mediante una
resolución simple como la del Senador Pendatun: para
enmendarlos o derogarlos hace falta que se reforme la
Constitución por los procesos que ella preceptúa. Hacer
depender la admisión del legislador o la tenencia de su
cargo de una resolución o acuerdo reglamentario es de lo
más subversivo, pues le reduciría a una situación tan
precaria y tan endeble que un mero empleado del servicio
civil tendría más prestancia y más seguridad que él.
Se nos cita, sin embargo, el caso de Barry vs. United
States ex rel Cunningham (279 U. S., 867, 874; 73 Law. ed.
597), para demostrar que la Resolución Pendatun es válida
y legal por entrar y recaer dentro del poder inherente del
Senado para suspender a cualquier miembro,
independientemente de la cuestión electoral. Hemos
revisado cuidadosamente la sentencia citada y la hemos
hallado inaplicable al presente caso. Es verdad que ella
tiene cierta relación con el caso de Vare, candidato a
Senador en Pennsylvania en las elecciones de 1926, a quien
se le negó prima facie el asiento mientras se efectuaba una
investigación de alegadas irregularidades y prácticas
corruptas cometidas para promover su nominación y su
elección, entre ellas el haber gastado centenares de miles
de dólares, el haber hecho promesas impropias e ilegales,
etc., etc. Pero, aparte de que la suspension del juramento y
asiento de Vare caía perfectamente dentro de los poderes
expresos e inherentes del Senado Americano como "único
juez de la elección, actas y calificaciones de sus miembros,"
sólo muy incidental y colateralmente se habla de esto en el
caso de Barry. La única y verdadera cuestión planteada en
este caso era la de si a un tal Cunningham se le podía
arrestar, mediante orden del Senado, y traerle a la barra
para contestar a
337
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 337

Vera vs. Avelino
ciertas preguntas sobre la procedencia de ciertos fondos

gastados en la nominación y elección de Vare. La Corte
Suprema Federal dijo que sí, que esto caía dentro de los
poderes judiciales del Senado. "Generally"—dice la Corte
—"the Senate is a legislative body, exercising in connection
with the House only the power to make laws. But it has
had conferred upon it by the Constitution certain powers
which are not legislative but judicial in character. Among
these is the power to judge of the elections, returns and
qualifications of its members. That power carries with it
authority to take such steps as may be appropriate and
necessary to secure information upon which to decide
concerning elections" (Barry, supra, 871). Y al final de la
sentencia la Corte sienta la siguiente afirmación que es
muy significativa para el presente caso: "Here the question
under consideration concerns the exercise by the Senate of
an indubitable power; and if judicial interference can be
successfully invoked it can only be upon a clear showing of
such arbitrary and improvident use of the power as will
constitute a denial of due process of law. That condition we
are unable to find in the present case" (Barry, supra, 874).
De suerte que, bien mirado, el asunto de Barry hasta es un
argumento en favor de la jurisdicción de esta Corte
Suprema para conocer y enjuiciar la Resolución Pendatun,
para determinar si con ella se ha infringido o no la
Constitución.
Se arguye que los recurridos no hicieron más que actuar
sobre un informe rendido por la Comisión sobre Elecciones
en obediencia a un mandato constitucional. En el informe
se recitaban ciertos hechos y se sentaban conclusiones
sobre alegados actos de terrorismo y violencia que podían
afectar a la elección de los recurrentes. Se dice que la
Resolución Pendatun no es sino la reacción, la respuesta de
los recurridos a dicho informe; que éstos tenían absoluta
discreción sobre el particular; que ello entraba dentro de
sus poderes políticos y no era revisable por el departamento
judicial. Para contestar ésto nos bastará repetir que la
338

Vera vs. Avelino
Resolución Pendatun es algo más que el ejercicio de un

poder político y discrecional: es una usurpación de poderes
constitucionales pertenecientes a otro organismo
constitucional; y para demostrarlo no necesitamos
reproducir los argumentos ya extensamente expuestos.
Por lo demás, el discutido informe de la Comisión sobre
Elecciones no tiene el valor ni alcance que le atribuyen, Ese
informe no podía autorizar ni justificar ninguna acción que
como la Resolución Pendatun tuviese el efecto de privar a
los recurrentes de sus asientos en el Senado, siquiera
temporalmente. El documento sometido por la Comisión
sobre Elecciones que tiene verdadero valor constitucional y
legal, que tiene fuerza obligatoria, es su proclama
declarando electos a los recurrentes. Esa proclama impone
a los recurridos el deber ministerial de recibir y aceptar a
los recurrentes como miembros del Senado hasta que el
Tribunal Electoral diga otra cosa. ¿ Cómo un informe, que
ni siquiera es el resultado de una investigación propia, sino
que está basado en otros informes de fuera, podía tener la
trascendencia que se le ha dado, tomando pie del mismo
para una sacudida seísmica de tales proporciones como es
la suspension de los derechos de tres miembros electos del
Senado y siete miembros electos de la Cámara de
Representantes? Ni la imaginación más libre y errática en
la Asamblea Nacional pudo haberse figurado jamás este
efecto a cuenta de esa cláusula inofensiva de la
Constitución que manda a la Comisión sobre Elecciones
presentar un informe después de cada elección al Jefe
Ejecutivo y al Congreso.
La acción sobre ese informe no puede ir más allá de los
límites que confinan cada poder. El Ejecutivo, por ejemplo,
investigaría los abusos e irregularidades de los funcionarios
encargados de ejecutar y hacer cumplir la Ley Electoral en
cumplimiento de su mandato constitucional de ejecutar las
leyes y de hacer que éstas se ejecuten fielmente
(Constitución de Filipinas, Artículo VII, secciones 7 y 10); y
el Congreso estudiaría y consideraria reformas a la ley con
vista de dicho informe, o bien crearía inmediatamente
339
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 339

Vera vs. Avelino
el Tribunal Electoral para despachar sin demora las

protestas sobre elecciones legislativas. El Ejecutivo no
podría, por ejemplo, so pretexto de tremendas
irregularidades y anomalías expuestas en el informe sobre
elecciones locales y provinciales, mandar suspender el
juramento de algún concejal, alcalde o gobernador
provincial electo, puesto que esto sería una usurpación y
una invasion de la jurisdicción de los tribunales de justicia.
De todo lo antedicho resulta evidente que, resolviendo la
primera cuestión propuesta, la Resolución Pendatun objeto
de controversia es ilegal, es anticonstitucional y es, por
tanto, insostenible.
"Segunda cuestión.—A la luz de nuestra Constitución y de

nuestras leyes ¿tiene este Tribunal Supremo jurisdicción y
competencia para conocer, enjuiciar y decidir el asunto?"
Los recurrentes invocan nuestra jurisdicción pidiendo un

remedio a que, según ellos, tienen derecho bajo la
Constitución y la ley. Alegan que son Senadores electos y,
por tanto, funcionarios constitucionales de Filipinas, pues
el Senado es cuerpo constitucional; que han sido
debidamente proclamados por la Comisión sobre Elecciones
bajo las disposiciones de la Ley No. 725 y, por tanto, tienen
derecho por ministerio de la Constitución y de la ley a
ocupar sus asientos en el Senado con todos los derechos,
prerrogativas y privilegios anejos al cargo; que, sin
embargo, los recurridos, o más bien una mayoría de ellos,
han aprobado una resolución—la Resolución Pendatun—
por la cual se les priva de sus asientos; que dicha resolución
infringe la Constitución y la ley; por tanto, piden dictemos
sentencia "declarando enteramente nula y de ningún valor
la citada resolución, y prohibiendo consecuentemente a los
recurridos y a cada uno de ellos a impedir a los recurrentes
a continuar en sus asientos en el Senado de Filipinas y a
ejercer libremente sus cargos como Senadores, y
prohibiéndoles igualmente a realizar cualquier otro
procedimiento ulterior para ejecutar la resolución citada." ¿
Podemos negarnos a asumir la jurisdicción que se invoca? ¿
Hay alguna manera
340

Vera vs. Avelino
de evadir la cuestión, inhibiéndose este Tribunal de

declarar si es o no verdad que se han infringido la
Constitución y la ley, y de conceder el remedio pedido si ha
habido tal infracción? La comodidad, la línea de menor
resistencia hubiera sido por el lado de la inacción, de la
inhibición. Nos damos perfecta cuenta de la tremenda
responsabilidad que supone el mantener la armonía entre
los poderes del Estado. Es parte de la prudencia y
sabiduría de los gobernantes el evitar en todo lo posible
cualquier ocasión de conflicto entre dichos poderes,
recordando siempre que si las instituciones son entidades
abstractas, por ende anestésicas, insensibles, los hombres
están hechos de arcilla animada y ya no son tan impasibles
como las instituciones. Pero hemos hallado que en el
presente caso nuestro deber de actuar, y de actuar
positivamente, tiene la fuerza de un imperativo categórico.
Nuestra jurisdicción está escrita en la Constitución, se
halla reafirmada en la ley. En el Título VIII de la
Constitución (sobre la judicatura) está declarada tanto
implícita como expresamente la facultad judicial de
resolver y decidir casos constitucionales; y en la regla 67
del Reglamento de los Tribunales hallamos la
implementación procesal de esa jurisdicción y competencia.
Puede decirse que en este respecto nuestra Constitución
es una edición mejorada de la Constitución federal de los
Estados Unidos. Como se sabe, la llamada facultad judicial
de revisar la Constitución en controversias propiamente
planteadas no se halla concedida expresamente en la
magna carta americana. Ha sido el genio audaz de sus
juristas, particularmente del gran Marshall, el que arrancó
esa facultad de las penumbras de la Constitución (Marbary
vs. Madison [1803], 1 Cranch, 137) contribuyendo ello
grandemente, según opinion general de los críticos tanto
nacionales como extranjeros, a fortalecer y estabilizar las
instituciones políticas de America. Aprovechando la
experiencia americana hemos escrito expresamente en
nuestra Constitución lo que en America no era más que
doctrina judicial o jurisprudencia.
341
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 341

Vera vs. Avelino
Se dice, sin embargo, con todo énfasis, con todo vigor, que
aún admitiendo que los recurridos, actuando como mayoría
del Senado, hayan infringido la Constitución al aprobar la
Resolución Pendatun y hacerla efectiva, con todo la
judicatura, la judicatura filipina no tiene jurisdicción para
intervenir en el caso, bajo el principio de la separación de
poderes que informa nuestra Constitución. Se arguye que
los tres poderes del Estado son iguales; que ninguno de
ellos es superior al otro; que cada poder puede interpretar
la Constitución a su modo y cuando así lo hace ningún otro
poder puede ni debe entrometerse y revisar su
interpretación; que el Senado es el único juez de sus actos y
si algún ciudadano sale agraviado por algún alegado
atropello a sus derechos constitucionales, su recurso no
está en acudir al poder judicial o al poder ejecutivo, sino en
apelar directamente al pueblo en la época de elecciones, en
los comicios, empleando el arma civil por excelencia del
ciudadano—la balota; y, finalmente, que el poder judicial
no es un "cúralo todo," una especie de Don Quijote que con
la lanza en ristre pretenda enderezar todos los entuertos.
Como se ve, nos llaman a decidir cuestiones de tremenda
importancia para el desenvolvimiento constitucional en
este país; lo que resolvamos puede trascender mucho más
allá del promedio de tiempo en que puede durar nuestra
existencia. Puede decirse sin inmodestia que grandes
decisiones del futuro—empleamos la palabra no en su
sentido exclusivamente judicial—dependerán de cómo
resolvamos esas cuestiones formidables que se nos
plantean hoy.
En parte, el argumento expuesto es correcto y acertado.
No se puede discutir que los tres poderes del Estado son
iguales e independientes entre sí; que ninguno de ellos es
superior al otro, mucho menos el poder judicial que entre
los tres es el menos fuerte y el más precario en medios e
implementos materiales. Tampoco se puede discutir que
bajo la Constitución cada poder tiene una zona, una esfera
de acción propia y privativa, y dentro de esa esfera un
cúmulo de facultades que le pertenecen exclusivamente;
que
342

Vera vs. Avelino
dentro de esa esfera y en el uso de esas facultades cada

poder tiene absoluta discreción y ningún otro poder puede
controlar o revisar sus actos so pretexto de que alguien los
cuestiona o tacha de arbitrarios, injustos, imprudentes o
insensatos. Pero la insularidad, la separación llega sólo
hasta aquí. Desde Montesquieu que lo proclamó
científicamente hasta nuestros días, el principio de la
separación de poderes ha sufrido tremendas modificaciones
y limitaciones. El consenso doctrinal hoy es que la teoría es
sólo relativa y que la separación de poderes queda
condicionada por una mecánica constitucional—la
mecánica de los frenos y cortapisas. (Willoughby, On the
Constitution of the United States, tomo 3, págs. 1619, 1620,
2.a edición.) Como queda dicho, cada poder es absoluto
dentro de la esfera que le asigna la Constitución; allí el
juego de sus facultades y funciones no se puede coartar.
Pero cuando se sale y extravasa de esa esf era invadiendo
otras esf eras constitucionales, ejerciendo facultades que no
le pertenecen, la teoría de la separación ya no le ampara, la
Constitución que es superior a él le sale al encuentro, le
restringe y le achica dentro de sus fronteras, impidiendo
sus incursiones anticonstitucionales. La cuestión ahora a
determinar es si bajo nuestro sistema de gobierno hay un
mecanismo que permite restablecer el juego normal de la
Constitución cuando surgen estos desbarajustes, estos
conflictos que podríamos llamar de fronteras
constitucionales; también es cuestión a determinar si
cuando surgen esos conflictos, un ciudadano sale
perjudicado en sus derechos, el mismo tiene algún remedio
expedito y adecuado bajo la Constitución y las leyes, y
quién puede concederle ese remedio. Y con ésto llegamos a
la cuestión básica, cardinal en este asunto.
Nuestra opinion es que ese mecanismo y ese remedio
existen—son los tribunales de justicia. "The very essence of
the American conception of the separation of powers is its
insistence upon the inherent distinction between
lawmaking and law-interpreting, and its assignment of the
343
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 343

Vera vs. Avelino
latter to the judiciary, a notion which, when brought to bear

upon the Constitution, yields judicial review" (Corwin, The
Twilight of the Supreme Court, p. 146). En Angara contra
Comisión Electoral (supra) dijimos que "prescindiendo del
tipo inglés y otros tipos europeos de gobierno
constitucional, los redactores de nuestra Constitución han
adoptado el tipo americano, en donde el departamento
judicial interpreta y da efecto a la Constitución escrita. En
algunos países, que han rehusado seguir el ejemplo
americano, se han insertado disposiciones en sus
constituciones prohibiendo a los tribunales que ejerciten su
facultad de interpretar la ley fundamental. Esto se toma
como un reconocimiento de lo que, de otro modo, sería la
regla de que a falta de prohibición expresa los tribunales
están obligados a asumir lo que lógicamente es deber suyo"
(Angara contra Comisión Electoral, 63 Jur. Fil., 173, 174).
En el famoso asunto de Marbury vs. Madison, supra, el
Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos, por boca de su
gran Chief Justice John Marshall, en términos inequívocos
definió y explicó las facultades de la judicatura para poner
en vigor la Constitución como la suprema ley del país, y
declaró que "es terminantemente de la competencia y deber
del departamento judicial el decidir cual es la ley que rige."
"The reasoning of Webster and Kent is substantially the same.

Webster says: 'The Constitution being the supreme law, it follows
of course, that every act of the legislature contrary to the law
must be void. But who shall decide this question? Shall the
legislature itself decide it? If so, then the Constitution ceases to be
legal and becomes only a moral restraint for the legislature. If
they, and they only, are to judge whether their acts be
conformable to the Constitution, then the Constitution is advisory
and accessory only, not legally binding; because, if the
construction of it rest wholly with them, their discretion, in
particular cases, may be in favor of very erroneous constructions.
Hence the courts of law, necessarily, when the case arises, must
decide upon the validity of particular acts.' Webster, Works, Vol.
III, 30." (Willoughby on the Constitution of the United States, Vol.
1, 2d edition, pp. 4, 5.)
En realidad, esta cuestión no es nueva en esta jurisdicción.

El precedente más inmediato que tenemos en nuestra
344
Vera vs. Avelino
jurisprudencia es el asunto de Angara contra Comisión

Electoral ya tantas veces citado (1936). Por primera vez se
planteaban y discutían ante esta Corte cuestiones
importantísimas resultantes de la Constitución del
Commonwealth que acababa de promulgarse. Se trataba
precisamente de deslindar las zonas constitucionales
ocupadas por la Asamblea Nacional y la Comisión
Electoral; es decir que, f undamentalmente, casi, casi las
mismas cuestiones que ahora se plantean ante nosotros. La
teoría de la separación de poderes—el leit motif de la
presente controversia—se analizó y discutió allí hasta en
sus últimas implicaciones y consecuencias. Brevemente
expuestos los hechos eran los siguientes: José Angara había
sido proclamado Representante electo por uno de los
distritos de Tayabas. Al inaugurarse la Asamblea Nacional
su acta fué confirmada por este cuerpo juntamente con las
de otros Representantes contra quienes no se habían
formulado protestas. El acta de Angara no estaba
protestada entonces. Algunos días después Pedro Insua, su
contrincante, presentó una protesta ante la Comisión
Electoral que acababa solamente de constituirse. Escudado
tras el hecho de que su acta ya había sido confirmada por la
Asamblea Nacional, Angara vino a esta Corte planteando
una acción originaria para que se expidiera un
mandamiento de inhibición prohibiéndole a la Comisión
Electoral que siguiera conociendo de la protesta. Esta Corte
aceptó el reto asumiendo jurisdicción sobre el caso,
procediendo a desempeñar su alta función de intér-prete de
la Constitución y haciendo lo que gráficamente llamó
deslinde de facultades constitucionales. Reconociendo y
estableciendo firmemente la jurisdicción exclusiva de la
novísima Comisión Electoral sobre controversias relativas a
la elección de miembros de la Asamblea Nacional, esta
Corte denegó el recurso de prohibición. Llevando las cosas
por la tremenda, la Asamblea Nacional, bajo la teoría de la
separación de poderes, pudo haber ignorado la decision de
esta Corte, pudo haber pasado por encima de la Comisión
Electoral conservándole el asiento a Angara, ya
345
VOL. 77, AUGUST 81, 1946 345

Vera vs. Avelino
que el acta de éste había sido confirmada por ella cuando

aun no había protesta. No lo hizo. La Constitución, casi
entre los pañales aún de su cuna, se salvó gracias a la
compostura de todo el mundo, saliendo ilesa de la prueba,
rodeada de grandes prestigios. Las conclusiones y
pronunciamientos de la Corte por boca del ponente el
Magistrado Laurel, parecen estereotipados para el caso que
nos ocupa y para el presente momento histórico con todas
sus crisis; así que los vamos a reproducir en toda su
integridad a continuación:
"La separación de poderes es un principio fundamental de nuestro

sistema de gobierno. Se establece, no por disposición expresa, sino
por division real trazada en nuestra Constitución. Cada
departamento del Gobierno tiene conocimiento exclusivo de las
materias que caen dentro de su jurisdicción, y es supremo dentro
de su propia esfera. Pero del hecho de que los tres poderes han de
conservarse separados y distintos no se sigue que la Constitución
se propuso que fueran absolutamente irrestringidos e
independientas unos de otros. La Constitución ha dispuesto un
sistema elaborado de frenos y cortapisas para asegurar
coordinación en los trabajos de los varios departamentos del
Gobierno. Per -ejemplo, el Jefe Ejecutivo, bajo nuestra
Constitución, es hasta tal punto erigido en un freno para el poder
legislativo que se requiere su asentimiento en la aprobación de las
leyes. Sin embargo, esto está sujeto al ulterior freno de que un
proyecto de ley puede convertirse en ley no obstante la negativa
del Presidente de aprobarlo, por medio de una votación de dos
tercios o tres cuartos, según sea el caso, de la Asamblea Nacional.
También tiene el Presidente facultad de convocar a la Asamblea
cuando lo crea conveniente. Por otra parte, la Asamblea Nacional
funciona como un freno sobre el Ejecutivo, en el sentido de que es
necesario su consentimiento, por medio de la Comisión de
Nombramientos, en el nombramiento de ciertos funcionarios; y es
esencial la conformidad de todos sus miembros para la conclusión
de tratados. Además, en su facultad de determinar qué tribunales,
que no sea el Tribunal Supremo, se habrán de establecer, para
definir su competencia, y de destinar fondos para su
sostenimiento, la Asamblea Nacional rige al departamento
judicial en cierto grado y medida. La Asamblea ejercita, también,
la facultad judicial de conccer de recusaciones. Y la judicatura, a
su vez, con el Tribunal Supremo por árbitro final, frena con
efectividad a los demás departamentos en el ejercicio de su
facultad de determinar la ley, y de aquí que pueda declarar nulos
los actos ejecutivos y legislativos que contravengan la Constitución.
346

Vera vs. Avelino
"Pero, en esencia, la Constitución ha delineado con mano firme y

en términos enérgicos la asignación de facultades a los
departamentos ejecutivo, legislativo y judicial del Gobierno. La
superposición y el entrelazamiento de funciones y deberes de los
varios departamentos, sin embargo, a veces hace difícil decir
precisamente dónde termina uno y empieza otro. En tiempos de
intranquilidad social o excitación política, las grandes piedras
angulares de la Constitución son susceptibles de ser olvidadas o
anubladas, si no desatendidas enteramente. En casos de conflicto,
el departamento judicial es el único organismo constitucional que
puede ser llamado para determinar el proprio deslinde de
facultades entre los varios departamentos y entre las unidades
integrales o constituyentes de los mismos.
"Como cualquier producto humano, nuestra Constitución
carece, desde luego, de perfección y perfectibilidad; pero, en tanto
en cuanto estaba en manos de nuestro pueblo disponerlo así,
obrando por medio de sus delegados, ese instrumento, que es
expresión de su soberanía, por limitada que sea, ha establecido un
gobierno republicano destinado a obrar y funcionar como un
conjunto armónico, bajo un sistema de frenos y cortapisas, y con
sujeción a las limitaciones y restricciones que se disponen en
dicho instrumento. La Constitución señala, en un lenguaje nada
incierto, las restricciones y limitaciones de los poderes y
organismos gubernamentales. Si estas restricciones y limitaciones
fueran traspuestas, seria inconcebible que la Constitución no
hubiera dispuesto un mecanismo por el cual pudiera encauzarse el
curso del Gobierno por los canales constitucionales, pues entonces
la distribución de poderes sería mera palabrería, el bill de
derechos meras expresiones sentimentales, y los principios de
buen gobierno meros apotegmas políticos. Ciertamente, las
limitaciones y restricciones que comprende nuestra Constitución
son reales, como debe serlo en cualquier Constitución. En los
Estados Unidos en donde no se encuentra ninguna concesión
constitucional expresa en su Constitución, la posesión de este
poder moderador de los tribunales, por no decir ya nada de su
origen histórico y desenvolvimiento aquí ha sido dejado en reposo
por la aquiescencia popular por un período de más de un siglo y
medio. En nuestro caso, este poder moderador está concedido, si
no expresamente, por deducción tácita del artículo 2, Título VIII,
de nuestra Constitución.
"La Constitución es una definición de las facultades del
Gobierno. ¿ Quién es el llamado a determinar la naturaleza,
propósito y alcance de esas facultades? La Constitución misma ha
dispuesto el organismo de la judicatura como el medio racional. Y,
cuando la judicatura media para determinar los linderos
constitucionales, no mantiene ninguna superioridad sobre los
otros departamentos; en realidad
347
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 347

Vera vs. Avelino
no anula ni invalida un acto de la Legislatura, sino que solamente

asevera la solemne y sagrada obligación a ella asignada por la
Constitución de determinar pretensiones incompatibles de
autoridad dimanada de la Constitución, y de establecer para las
partes en una controversia actual los derechos que ese
instrumento asegura y garantiza a las mismas. Esto, a la verdad,
es todo lo que va implícito en la expresión 'supremacía judicial',
que propiamente es la facultad de revisión judicial bajo la
Constitución. Aun entonces, este poder de revisión judicial está
limitado a casos y controversias reales, que 66 ha de ejercitar
después de que las partes han tenido plena libertad de hacerse
oír, y está, además, limitado a la cuestión constitucional
suscitada, o a la misma lis mota planteada. Cualquier tentativa
de abstracción, sólo conduciría a la dialéctica, y obstaculizaría las
cuestiones legales, y a conclusiones estériles que nada tendrían
que ver con los hechos reales. Circunscrita de este modo a sus f
unciones, la judicatura no se ocupa de resolver cuestiones sobre la
cordura, justicia o conveniencia de la Iegislación. Aun más, los
tribunales conceden la presunción de constitucionalidad a las
leyes aprobadas por la Legislatura, no solamente porque se
presume que ésta acata la Constitución, sino, también, porque la
judicatura, en el fallo de actuales casos y controversias, debe
reflejar la sabiduría y la justicia del pueblo, tal y como se han
expresado por medio de sus representantes y por los
departamentos ejecutivo y legislativo del Gobierno. "Pero por
mucho que pudiéramos postular sobre los frenos internos de
poderes que dispone nuestra Constitución, debe, con todo,
recordarse que, según las palabras de James Madison, el sistema
mismo no es 'el principal paladín de la libertad constitucional * * *
el pueblo, que es el autor de esta bendición, debe, también, ser su
guardian * * * sus ojos deben siempre estar alertos para señalar,
su voz para delatar * * * agresiones a la autoridad de su
constitución.' En último análisis, pues, el triunfo de nuestro
Gobierno en los años venideros deberá ser puesto a prueba en el
crisol de las mentes y en los corazones de los filipinos, más bien
que en las salas de consultas y cámaras de audiencia de los
tribunales." (Angara contra Comisión Electoral, 63 Jur. Fil., 169-
172.)
Algo más se puede añadir sobre el caso de Angara. All! la

Corte descartó sin vacilaciones la posibilidad de un vacío,
de un estado jurídico de inerme impotencia frente a
conflictos constitucionales, sentando la siguiente
conclusión: "En nuestro caso, la índole de la actual
controversia revela la necesidad de un árbitro
constitucional último que determine la incompatibilidad de
facultades entre dos organismos creados por la
Constitución. Si fuéramos a rehusar el
348

Vera vs. Avelino
conocer de la controversia ¿quien determinaría el conflicto?

Y si se dejara sin decidir ni determinar el conflicto ¿ no se
crearía en sí un vacio en nuestro sistema constitucional que
a la larga daría por resultado echar a perder toda la labor?
El hacer estas preguntas es contestarlas. Natura vacuum
abhorret, por lo que debemos evitar toda postración en
nuestro sistema constitucional." No solamente esto—
añadimos—sino que a toda costa debemos evitar que fuera
de la legalidad se forme un "territorio de nadie" donde
puedan germinar situaciones peligrosas y explosivas.
Pero además del caso de Angara tenemos en nuestra
jurisprudencia otro precedente más inmediato todavía en
apoyo de la tesis de la supremacía judicial en tratándose de
interpretar la Constitución y de dirimir conflictos
constitucionales; nos referimos al asunto de Carmen
Planas, recurrente, contra José Gil, Comisionado del
Servicio Civil, recurrido, decidido por este Tribunal
Supremo el 18 de enero de 1939 bajo la ponencia del mismo
Magistrado Laurel (67 Phil., 62). Carmen Planas, siendo
miembro de la Junta Municipal de Manila, publicó un
artículo en La Vanguardia criticando duramente a ciertos
funcionarios del Gobierno, entre ellos el Presidente de
Filipinas Sr. Quezon, en relación con las elecciones de
Diputados a la Asamblea Nacional celebradas el 8 de
noviembre de 1938. Entre los fuertes cargos formulados por
la articulista contra los dioses del Olimpo oficial, figuraban
los siguientes: que, no obstante el tácito interdicto
impuesto por la Constitución al disponer que el Presidente
de Filipinas ejerciese su cargo por un solo período—6 años
—sin reelección, situándosele de esta manera en las
serenas alturas del Poder como un supremo árbitro,
moderador y neutral, el Sr. Quezon intervino activamente
en aquellas elecciones a favor de los nacionalistas poniendo
en juego toda la enorme influencia de su cargo y aplastando
así a los candidatos de la oposición; que toda la maquinaria
del Gobierno se movilizó a favor de los candidatos
nacionalistas, colocándose en la vanguardia de dicha
movilización los
349
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 349

Vera vs. Avelino
miembros del Gabinete; y que no se escatimaron medios

para asegurar el triunfo de los candidatos de la
administración, el fraude y la corrupción inclusive. Al día
siguiente de haberse publicado este artículo sensacional, la
Srta. Planas recibió una carta firmada de la siguiente
manera: "By authority of the President: Jorge B. Vargas,
Secretary to the President," en donde se le decía: "Por la
presente se le instruye que comparezca ante el
Comisionado del Servicio Civil, sola o acompañada por un
abogado, a las 9 de la mañana Noviembre 22, para probar
las declaraciones hechas por usted. El que tales cargo no se
puedan sostener o no se pruebe que se han hecho de buena
fe, será considerado como razón suficiente para su
suspension o destitución del cargo."
La Srta. Planas objetó a la investigación recusando al
Comisionado del Servicio Civil. Este, sin embargo, insistió
en proseguir la investigación y fué entonces cuando ella
vino ante este Tribunal Supremo pidiendo un mandamiento
de prohibición contra el Comisionado, por los siguientes
fundamentos, entre otros: que bajo la Constitución y las
leyes que protegen la libertad de palabra y de expresión,
ella tenía derecho o formular la censura de que se trata
como libre ciudadana de un país democrático; que, en ef
ecto, ella escribió el artículo no como concejal sino como
persona particular; que como funcionario ella solamente
podía ser investigada y exigírsele responsabilidad por
motivo de prevaricación, mala conducta o infracción
relacionada con su cargo, y éste no era el caso; que
suponiendo que el artículo en cuestión fuera libeloso o
contuviera algo por lo cual la articulista pudiera ser
criminalmente responsable, el Código Penal y el
Procedimiento Criminal señalan el modo de hacer efectiva
esa responsabilidad ante los tribunales de justicia. El
Procurador General, al impugnar el recurso, alegó entre
otros fundamentos que este Tribunal, bajo "el principio de
la separación de poderes establecido por la Constitución, no
tenía jurisdicción para revisar las órdenes del Jefe
Ejecutivo de que se trata, las cuales son de carácter
puramente administrativo," citándose en apoyo de la
impugnación las
350

Vera vs. Avelino
sentencias de este Tribunal en los asuntos de Severino

contra El Gobernador General y Junta Provincial de
Negros Occidental, Abueva contra Wood y Alejandrino
contra Quezon, citados en otra parte de esta disidencia.
Esta Corte desestimó la objeción y resolvió que tenía
jurisdicción y competencia sobre el caso, diciendo que si
bien "los actos del Ejecutivo ejecutados dentro de los límites
de su jurisdicción son sus actos oficiales y los tribunales no
dirigirán ni controlarán la acción ejecutiva en tales casos"
(la regla es la de no-intervención), sin embargo, "de esta
premisa legal no se sigue necesariamente que no podemos
inquirir la validez o constitucionalidad de sus actos cuando
éstos se cuestionan y atacan en un procedimiento legal
apropiado." "Por lo que respecta a la judicatura"—anadio
esta Corte—"si bien es verdad que ella no agarra 'ni la
espada ni la bolsa,' es por arreglo constitucional el órgano
llamado para deslindar las fronteras constitucionales, y al
Tribunal Supremo está encomendada expresamente o por
necesaria implicación la obligación de determinar en
procedimientos apropiados la validez o constitucionalidad
de cualquier tratado, ley, ordenanza, orden ejecutiva o
regulación."
Es verdad que esta Corte denegó el recurso interpuesto
por la Srta. Planas, pero no por el fundamento de la falta
de jurisdicción alegado por el Procurador General, sino
porque llegó a la conclusión de que la orden de
investigación cuestionada caía dentro de los límites
constitucionales de la jurisdicción del Presidente, y, por
tanto, era válida, constitucional y legalmente. He aquí los
pronunciamientos pertinentes de la Corte, los cuales no
tienen desperdicio y reafirman con todo vigor la doctrina de
la supremacía judicial en materia de deslindes
constitucionales, establecida en el asunto de Angara, a
saber:
"The Solicitor General, under the last paragraph (par. 10) of his
amended answer, raises the question of jurisdiction of this court
over the acts of the Chief Executive. He contends that 'under the
separation of powers marked by the Constitution, the court has no
351
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 351

Vera vs. Avelino
jurisdiction to review the orders of the Chief Executive, evidenced

by Annex A and Annex C of the petition, which are of purely
administrative character.' Reliance is had on the previous
decisions of this court: Severino vs. Governor-General ([1910], 16
Phil., 366); Abueva vs. Wood ([1924], 45 Phil, 612); and
Alejandrino vs. Quezon ([1924], 46 Phil., 83). Although this is the
last point raised by the Government in its answer, it should, for
reasons that are apparent, be first to be considered. If this court
does not have jurisdiction to entertain these proceedings, then,
the same should be dismissed as a matter of course; otherwise,
the merits of the controversy should be passed upon and
determined.
"It must be conceded that the acts of the Chief Executive
performed within the limits of his jurisdiction are his official acts
and courts will neither direct nor restrain. executive action in
such cases. The rule is noninterference. But from this legal
premise, it does not necessarily follow that we are precluded from
making an inquiry into the validity or constitutionality of his acts
when these are properly challenged in an appropriate legal
proceeding. The classical separation of governmental powers,
whether viewed in the light of the political philosophy of Aristotle,
Locke, or Montesquieu, or of the postulations of Mabini, Madison,
or Jefferson, is a relative theory of government. There is more
truism and actuality in interdependence than in independence
and separation of powers, for as observed by Justice Holmes in a
case of Philippine origin, we cannot lay down 'with mathematical
precision and divide the branches into watertight compartments'
not only because 'the great ordinances of the Constitution do not
establish and divide fields of black and white' but also because
'even the more specific of them are found to terminate in a
penumbra shading gradually from one extreme to the other/
(Springer vs. Government [1928], 277 U. S. 189; 72 Law ed., 845,
852.) As far as the judiciary is concerned, while it holds 'neither
the sword nor the purse' it is by constitutional placement the
organ called upon to allocate constitutional boundaries, and to the
Supreme Court is entrusted expressly or by necessary implication
the obligation of determining in appropriate cases the
constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or
executive order or regulation. (Sec. 2 [1], Article VIII,
Constitution of the Philippines.) In this sense and to this extent,
the judiciary restrains the other departments of the government
and this result is one of the necessary corollaries of the 'system of
checks and balances' of the government established.
"In the present case, the President is not a party to the
proceeding. He is neither compelled nor restrained to act in a
particular way. The Commissioner of Civil Service is the party
respondent and the theory is advanced by the Government that
because an Investigation undertaken by him is directed by
authority of the
352

Vera vs. Avelino
President of the Philippines, this court has no jurisdiction over

the present proceedings instituted by the petitioner, Carmen
Planas. The argument is farfetched. A mere plea that a
subordinate officer of the government is acting under orders from
the Chief Executive may be an important averment, but is neither
decisive nor conclusive upon this court. Like the dignity of his
high office, the relative immunity of the Chief Executive from
judicial interference is not in the nature of a sovereign passport
for all the subordinate officials and employees of the Executive
Department to the extent that at the mere invocation of the
authority that it purports the jurisdiction of this court to inquire
into the validity or legality of an executive order is necessarily
abated or suspended. The facts in Severino vs. GovernorGeneral
(supra), Abueva vs. Wood (supra), and Alejandrino vs. Quezon,
(supra), are different, and the doctrines laid down therein must be
confined to the facts and legal environment involved and
whatever general observations might have been made 'in
elaboration of the views therein expressed but which are not
essential to the determination of the issues presented are mere
obiter dicta.
"While, generally, prohibition as an extraordinary legal writ
will not issue to restrain or control the performance of other than
judicial or quasi-judicial functions (50 C. J., 658), its issuance and
enforcement are regulated by statute and in this jurisdiction it
may issue to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person,
whether exercising functions judicial or ministerial, whose acts
are without or in excess of jurisdiction. (Secs. 516 and 226, Code
of Civil Procedure.) The terms 'judicial' and 'ministeriar used with
reference to 'functions' in the statute are undoubtedly
comprehensive and include the challenged investigation by the
respondent Commissioner of Civil Service, which investigation if
unauthorized and is violative of the Constitution as contended is a
fortiori without or in excess of jurisdiction. The statutory rule in
this jurisdiction is that the writ of prohibition is not confined
exclusively to courts or tribunals to keep them within the limits of
their own jurisdiction and to prevent them from encroaching upon
the jurisdiction of other tribunals, but will issue, in appropriate
cases, to an officer or person whose acts are without or in excess of
his authority. Not infrequently, 'the writ is granted, where it is
necessary for the orderly administration of justice, or to prevent
the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive or vindictive
manner, or a multiplicity of actions.' (Dimayuga and Fajardo vs
Fernandez [1922], 43 Phil., 304, 307; Aglipay vs. Ruiz [1937], 35
Off. Gaz., 1264.) This court, therefore, has. jurisdiction over the
instant proceedings and will accordingly proceed to determine the
merits of the present controversy."
353
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 353

Vera vs. Avelino
Se arguye, sin embargo, que de permitirse la intervención

judicial para deslinde constitucional o para dirimir
conflictos constitucionales, ello tiene que ser en casos o
procedimientos apropiados. Se dice que en el asunto de
Angara la intromisión judicial era procedente y justificada
porque en el la parte litigante era sólo la Comisión
(Tribunal) Electoral, como recurrida, y la Asamblea
Nacional, como uno de los tres poderes del Estado, no era ni
recurrente ni recurrida. Por analogía se insinúa también
que en el asunto de Planas contra Gil el Presidente de
Filipinas no era parte directa sino tan sólo el Comisionado
del Servicio Civil.
El argumento es de esos que, por su sutileza, provocan
una batalla de argucias hasta sobre el filo de una navaja,
como se suele decir. Es verdad que en el caso de Angara la
Asamblea Nacional no era parte directa porque de su
inclusion no había necesidad; pero ¿cambia ello el aspecto
de la cuestión? ¿Se puede negar que allí había conflicto de
jurisdicciones constitucionales entre la Asamblea y la
Comisión Electoral y que cuando, a instancia de parte, se
invocó y pidió la intervención de esta Corte, la misma
intervino y se declaró competente para hacer el deslinde
constitucional y finalmente adjudicó la zona disputada a la
Comisión (Tribunal) Electoral? Supóngase que una mayoría
de los miembros de la Asamblea Nacional, pasando por
encima de la sentencia de esta Corte, hubieran insistido en
hacer efectiva la confirmación del acta de Angara y le
hubieran dado un asiento en los escaños de dicha
Asamblea, despojando a la Comisión Electoral de su
derecho de conocer y enjuiciar la protesta de Insúa ¿
hubiera ello modificado la fase fundamental del caso,
haciendo constitucional lo que era anticonstitucional, y
hubiera perdido este Tribunal Supremo la jurisdicción para
entender del asunto? Indudablemente que no: la infracción
de la Constitución sería la misma, tal vez mayor y más
grave; y la jurisdicción de este Tribunal para intervenir en
el conflicto, más obligada y más
354

Vera vs. Avelino
forzosa, a fin de mantener inviolada la suprema Ley de la

nación. En otras palabras, la inhibición judicial no sería
una actitud más correcta, más sana y más prudente tan
sólo porque la inf racción de la Constitución f uera más
audaz y más agresiva. Aquí no habría medias tintas: to be
or not to be, que dijo Hamlet.
Y lo propio se puede decir del asunto de Planas contra
Gil. Es verdad que el Presidente no estaba nombrado como
parte directa en el litigio. Pero ¿qué más da? ¿ No se
trataba de una orden ejecutiva expedida por directa
autorización del Presidente? Y así como se pudo dictar una
sentencia a favor del recurrido por el fundamento de que
con la expedición de la orden cuestionada el Presidente ne
se había extralimitado de sus facultades constitucionales y
estatutorias, a sensu contrario también se hubiera podido
dictar una sentencia adversa, es decir, si se hubiese tratado
de un acto ejecutivo que cae fuera de las facultades
conferidas al Presidente por la Constitución; y en este
último caso la sentencia no hubiera sido menos derogatoria
tan sólo porque hubiese estado dirigida contra el
Comisionado del Servicio Civil que actuaba por mandato
directo del Presidente. El que está a las maduras, también
debe estar a las duras * * *.
Se nos dice, sin embargo, que el caso de Angara no es la
cita pertinente aplicable, sino el de Alejandrino contra
Quezon (46 Jur. Fil., 87, 151), decidido en 1924. El Senador
Alejandrino agredió a otro miembro del Senado fuera de la
sala de sesiones de resultas de un debate acalorado. Con
motivo del incidente la mayoría aprobó una resolución
suspendiendo a Alejandrino por un año y privándole,
además, de todas sus prerrogativas, privilegios y
emolumentos durante dicho período de tiempo. Alejandrino
planteó ante esta Corte una acción originaria pidiendo la
expedición de una 'orden de mandamus o interdicto para
que se le repusiera en su cargo con todos los derechos y
privilegios anexos. Se denegó el recurso por el fundamento
de que esta Corte carecía de jurisdicción para conocer del
asunto.
355
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 355

Vera vs. Avelino
Un somero examen del caso Alejandrino demuestra, sin

embargo, que no tiene ninguna paridad con el que nos
ocupa. Es evidente que el Senado tenía el derecho de
castigar a Alejandrino dentro de sus facultades
disciplinarias provistas por la ley orgánica—la Ley Jones.
Esta era una facultad discrecional y constitucional cuyo
ejercicio no podía ser regido ni revisado por ningún otro
poder. Como hemos dicho más arriba, cada poder es árbitro
único y exclusivo dentro de su esfera constitucional. (Planas
contra Gil, 67 Phil., 62.) Ninguno tiene derecho a
entrometerse en la forma como se las arregla allí. Pero
nuestro caso es completamente diferente. Aquí los
recurridos o la mayoría de los Senadores han ejercido una
facultad que constitucionalmente no les pertenece. Por
tanto, han traspasado los confines de su predio
constitucional, invadiendo otro; por tanto, la Resolución
Pendatun es completamente ultra vires. Y no es necesario
que repitamos los argumentos ya extensamente
desarrollados acerca de este punto.
Todas las autoridades que se citan en la decision de la
mayoría en el asunto de Alejandrino tienen la misma ratio
decidendi, el mismo leit motif. Se trata de casos en que los
actos discutidos recaían dentro de las facultades
constitucionales del poder envuelto en el litigio; de ahi la
negativa del departamento judicial a intervenir, a
entrometerse.
Y si examinamos los precedentes locales sobre la
materia, vemos que la veta de la jurisprudencia tiene el
mismo tipo, la misma naturaleza. En el asunto de Barcelón
contra Baker y Thompson (5 Jur. Fil., 89) se declaró legal lo
hecho por el Gobernador General por la razón de que caía
dentro de sus poderes políticos o ejecutivos bajo la
constitución.
Lo propio se hizo en los siguientes asuntos:
Forbes contra Chuoco Tiaco y Crossfield, 16 Jur. Fil.,
635; Asunto de McCulloch Dick, 38 Jur. Fil., 43, 225, 240;
Severino contra Gobernador General y Junta Provincial de
Negros Occidental, 16 Jur. Fil., 369; Abueva contra Wood,
45 Jur. Fil., 643.
356

Vera vs. Avelino
Al negarse esta Corte a revisar lo actuado por el Jefe

Ejecutivo en los casos citados, ha tenido indudablemente en
cuenta el siguiente pronunciamiento del Chief Justice
Marshall en el citado asunto de Marbury vs. Madison: "The
Constitution itself endows the President with certain
important political powers in the exercise of which he is to
use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his
country in his political character, and to his own
conscience." De modo que, en último resultado, en tales
casos se ha reconocido que el Ejecutivo ha ejercido
solamente sus poderes constitucionales; nada hay en ellos
que sugiera la idea de la inmunidad e irresponsabilidad por
una infracción de la Constitución.
Contra la pretension de que el departamento judicial no
puede revisar los procedimientos de una Cámara
legislativa en casos de extralimitación constitucional y
dictar la orden correspondiente, militan varios precedentes
en la jurisprudencia americana. El más conocido y
celebrado entre ellos es el asunto de Kilbourn vs. Thompson
(103 U. S., 168; 26 Law. ed., 377). En 1876 la Cámara de
Representantes de los Estados Unidos aprobó una
resolución disponiendo que se investigara cierta compañía
en la que el gobierno federal, por medio del Secretario de la
Marina, había hecho depósitos improvidentes de dinero
público. Se decía que la compañía estaba en quiebra y el
gobierno federal era uno de los mayores acreedores. Se
alegaba, además, en la resolución que los tribunales eran
impotentes para hacer algo en el caso y proteger el interés
público. Se nombraba en la resolución un comité de cinco
Representantes para efectuar la investigación.
En el curso de la investigación se le citó al recurrente
Hallet Kilbourn subpoena duces tecum para que produjera
ante el comité ciertos documentos y contestase ciertas
preguntas. Kilbourn se negó a hacer lo uno y lo otro.
Kilbourn fué entonces arrestado por orden del Speaker y
como quiera que siguió rehusando contestar las mismas
preguntas formuladas ahora por el Speaker y producir los
documentos requeridos por el comité, la Cámara aprobó
otra
357
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 357

Vera vs. Avelino
resolución disponiendo que Kilbourn f uese otra vez

arrestado y detenido en la cárcel del Distrito de Columbia
hasta que se aviniese a cumplir la orden contenida en las
resoluciones de la Cámara de Representantes. Kilbourn no
sólo insistió en su negativa, sino que formuló una queja
contra el sargento de armas de la Cámara y los cinco
miembros del Comité por "trespass for false imprisonment,"
acusándoles de haberle arrancado de su casa mediante
fuerza y detenido por 45 días en la cárcel. Elevado el
asunto al Tribunal Supremo Federal, éste declaró que la
resolución de investigación era anticonstitucional; que la
investigación no tenía por objeto una acción legislativa sino
que era más bien para una inquisición de carácter judicial;
así que la Corte declaró lo siguiente:
"In looking to the Preamble and Resolution under which the

committee acted, before which Mr. Kilbourn refused to testify, we
are of opinion that the House of Representatives not only exceeded
the limit of its own authority, but assumed a power which could
only be properly exercised by another branch of the government,
because the power was in its nature clearly judicial.
"The Constitution declares that the judicial power of the
United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such
inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain. If
what we have said of the division of the powers of the government
among the three departments be sound, this is equivalent to a
declaration that no judicial power is vested in the Congress or
either branch of it, save in the cases specifically enumerated to
which we have referred. * * *
"We are of opinion, for these reasons, that the Resolution of the
House of Representatives authorizing the investigation, was in
excess of the power conferred on that body by the Constitution; that
the committee, therefore, had no lawful authority to require Mr.
Kilbourn to testify as a witness beyond what he voluntarily chose
to tell; that the orders and resolutions of the House, and the
warrant of the Speaker, under which Mr. Kilbourn was
imprisoned, are, in like manner, void for want. of jurisdiction in
that body, and that his imprisonment was without any lawful
authority" (Kilbourn vs. Thompson, 103 U. S., 168; 26 Law. ed.,
377.)
Finalmente, la Corte dispuso que la causa contra

Thompson, el sargento de armas, se devolviera al tribunal
de origen para ulteriores procedimientos. Se estimó el
sobreseimiento
358

Vera vs. Avelino
con respecto a los miembros del comité bajo el principio de
la libertad parlamentaria de debate que les hacía inmunes.
A propósito de esto último son muy significativas las
siguientes palabras de la Corte:
"It is not necessary to decide here that there may not be things
done, in the one House or other, of an extraordinary character, for
which the members who take part in the act may be held legally
responsible. If we could suppose the members of these bodies so
far to forget their high functions and the noble instrument under
which they act as to imitate the Long Parliament in the execution
of the Chief Magistrate of the Nation, or to follow the example of
the French Assembly in assuming the functions of a court for
capital punishment, we are not prepared to say that such an utter
perversion of their powers to a criminal purpose would be
screened from punishment by the constitutional provision for
freedom of debate." (Idem, p. 392.)
Además de la precedente cita, varias decisiones de los más

altos tribunales pueden citarse en apoyo de la doctrina de
que "todos los funcionarios, departamentos o agencias
gubernamentales están sujetos a restricción judicial cuando
obran fuera de sus facultades, legales o constitucionales, y
por virtud de dicha extralimitación privan a un ciudadano
de sus derechos" (Osborn vs. United States Bank, 9
Wheaton [U. S.], 739; Board of Liquidation vs. McComb, 92
[U. S.], 531; United States vs. Lee, 106 U. S., 196; Virginia
Cases, 114 U. S., 311; Regan vs. Farmers & Co., 154 U. S.,
362; Smith vs. Ames, 169 U. S., 466; Ex parte Young, 209
U. S. 123; Philadelphia Co. vs. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605.)
Respecto de la facultad judicial para expedir, en casos
apropiados, órdenes coercitivas dirigidas a funcionarios de
la Legislatura, hay en la jurisprudencia americana una
buena copia de autoridades. He aquí algunas de ellas:
"* * * En el asunto Ex parte Pickett (24 Ala., 91) se libró el

mandamiento contra el Presidente de la Cámara de
Representantes para obligarle a que certificara al Interventor de
Cuentas Públicas la cantidad a que tenía derecho el recurrente
como miembro de la Cámara como compensación por millaje y
dietas. En el asunto de State vs. Elder (31 Neb., 169), se libró el
mandamiento para obligar al Presidente de la Cámara de
Representantes para que abriera y
359
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 359

Vera vs. Avelino
publicara los resultados de la elección general. En el asunto de

State vs. Moffitt (5 Ohio, 350) se declaró que procedía expedir un
mandamus contra el Presidente de la Cámara de Representantes
para obligarle que certificara la elección y nombramiento de
funcionarios. En el asunto de Wolfe vs. McCaull (76 Va., 87) se
expidió el mandamiento para obligar al Archivero de las Nóminas
de la Cámara de Representantes a que imprimiera y publicara un
proyecto de ley aprobado por la Legislatura y, a solicitud, que
facilitara copia del mismo propiamente certificada. (Véanse
también los asuntos de Kilbourn vs. Thompson, 103 U. S., 168;
State vs. Gilchrist, 64 Fla., 41; People vs. Marton, 156 N. Y.,
136.)" (Alejandrino contra Quezon, 46 Jur. Fil., 87, 148, 149.)
De lo expuesto resulta evidente que esta Corte tiene

facultad para dictar la sentencia y expedir el interdicto que
se solicita. La orden irá dirigida no contra el Senado de
Filipinas, entidad abstracta que nada ha hecho contra la
Constitución. La orden restringente irá dirigida contra los
recurridos en cuanto ellos intentan hacer efectiva una
resolución que es ilegal, que es anticonstitucional, lo mismo
que se hizo en el asunto de Kilbourn. Se les restringe y
cohibe como se les restringiría y cohibiría si, por ejemplo,
en vez de la Resolución Pendatun, hubieran aprobado otra
resolución mandando a la cárcel a los recurrentes hasta
que el Tribunal Electoral resuelva la cuestión de sus actas.
¿ Habría alguien que sostuviera que si en tal caso vinieran
a esta Corte los afectados para pedir el adecuado remedio
contra el atropello, esta Corte no podría concederlo bajo la
teoría de la separación de poderes? Luego la cuestión se
reduce a una de grado, de tamaño de la transgresión
constitucional; pero es obvio que nuestra jurisdicción y
competencia no queda condicionada por el volumen de la
transgresión. ¿Y quién diría en tal caso que el Senado de
Filipinas ha sido el sujeto do la orden de interdicto, con
grave desdoro de sus altos prestigios como uno de los tres
poderes del Estado?
Puesto que la acción en el presente caso va dirigida no
contra el Senado como corporación o institución, sino contra
una mayoría de sus miembros como personas, como
individuos, si bien en su concepto de Senadores, dicho se
está que
360

Vera vs. Avelino
tenemos competencia para conceder él recurso, no sólo por

las razones constitucionales ya expuestas, sino porque está
claramente reconocida y definida dicha competencia en
nuestros estatutos: anteriormente en los artículos 226 y
516 de la Ley No. 190 (Cód. de Proc. Civ.), y ahora en la
regla 67, secciones 2 y 4, Reglamento de los Tribunales.
Estas disposiciones legales prescriben que el mandamiento
de inhibición (prohibition) puede expedirse a "una
corporación, junta, o persona, en ejercicio de sus funciones
judiciales o ministeriales, siempre que se demuestre que
carecían de competencia o se han extralimitado de ella en
las actuaciones que hayan practicado" (Planas contra Gil ut
supra). Sin embargo, se arguye que los recurridos como
Senadores no ejercen funciones judiciales ni ministeriales,
sino legislativas; luego la regla no es aplicable a ellos. Pero
es evidente que en el presente caso la función de que se
trata no es de carácter legislativo sino ministerial; apenas
es necesario decir que la Resolución Pendatun no es un acto
legislativo. Bajo la Constitución y los estatutos el derecho
de un miembro electo del Congreso a ser admitido y a
ocupar su asiento es de naturaleza ministerial, imperativa.
La Ley No. 725 del Commonwealth, aprobada por el pasado
Congreso para implementar la Ley Electoral con vista a las
elecciones nacionales del pasado 23 de Abril, dice en parte
lo siguiente:
"ART. 11. La Comisión de Elecciones hará el escrutinio de los

resultados para Senadores tan pronto como se hayan recibido las
actas de cada provincia y ciudad, pero no después del veinte de
mayo de mil novecientos cuarenta y seis. Serán proclamados
elegidos los dieciseis candidatos inscritos que obtuvieren el mayor
número de votos para el cargo de Senador. En caso de que
apareciere de los resultados del escrutinio de los votos para
Senadores que dos o más candidatos han obtenido el mismo
número de votos para el décimosexto puesto, la Comisión de
Elecciones, después de hacer constar este hecho en el acta
correspondiente, celebrará otra sesión pública, previa notificación
con tres días de antelación a todos los candidatos empatados, para
que ellos o sus representantes debidamente autorizados puedan
estar presentes si así lo desearen, en la cual procederá al sorteo de
los candidatos empatados y proclamará el candidato que
361
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 361

Vera vs. Avelino
saliere favorecido por la suerte. El candidato así proclamado

tendrá derecho a tomar posesión del cargo del mismo modo que si
hubiere sido elegido por pluralidad de votos. Acto seguido, la
Comisión de Elecciones levantará acta del procedimiento seguido
en el sorteo, de su resultado y de la proclamación subsiguiente. Se
enviarán copias certificadas de dicha acta por correo certificado al
Secretario del Senado y a cada uno de los candidatos empatados."
"ART. 12. * * * The candidates for Member of the House of
Representatives and those for Senator who have been proclaimed
elected by the respective Board of Canvassers and the
Commission on Elections shall assume office and shall hold
regular session for the year 1946 on May 25, 1946" (las
bastardillas son nuestras).
Si bajo estas disposiciones legales los recurrentes tienen el
derecho de asumir el cargo, es obvio que los demás
Senadores, entre ellos los recurridos, tienen el correlativo
deber ministerial de no impedirles el ejercicio de ese
derecho, o dicho de otro modo, el correlativo deber
ministerial de admitirles para que tomen posesión de sus
cargos a la sola presentación de sus credenciales que en
este caso viene a ser la proclama expedida por la Comisión
sobre Elecciones declarándolos electos (Delegado Roxas,
debates en la Asamblea Constituyente, ut supra). Se dice
que la frase shall assume office, con ser imperativa, no
impone una obligación específica de admitir a cualquier
miembro electo, sino que es tan sólo un mandamiento, un
directive al legislador electo para que tome posesión de su
cargo inmediatamente, como si un candidato triunfante
que, es de presumir, se presentó voluntariamente
candidato y a lo mejor gastó una fortuna para promover su
elección necesitara de ese úkase legislativo para asumir su
oficio. Pero concedamos por un momento, arguendo, que esa
disposición legal no tiene más que el significado de una
especie de conscripción civil, todavía cabe preguntar: ¿cómo
podría el legislador electo asumir forzosamente (shall) su
cargo, si, por otro lado, una mayoría de sus compañeros en
cónclave tuvieran la facultad discrecional—que puede
degenerar en arbitraria—de negarle el asiento, siquiera sea
con carácter temporal? ¿ No sería ello claramente un
absurdo, un contrasentido?
362

Vera vs. Avelino
Luego la conclusión lógica y natural es que esa frase

imperativa es de doble vía, esto es, tanto para admitir al
miembro electo como para que éste asuma el cargo.
Se apunta el temor de que la intervención judicial en el
caso que nos ocupa pueda dar lugar a una grave
consecuencia—la de que una orden adversa sea
desobedecida por los recurridos, suscitnádose por tal motivo
un conflicto de poderes. Pero, aparte de que el deber—
máxime si está impuesto por la Constitución y las leyes—se
tiene que cumplir rigurosamente por penoso que fuese sin
consideración a las consecuencias, parece impropio e
injusto presumir que los recurridos sean capaces, en un
momento dado, de desplazar las cuestiones que entraña la
presente controversia del elevado nivel en que deben
discutirse y resolverse. en medio de una atmósfera de
absoluta impersonalidad y objetividad, libre de los miasmas
de la pasión y suspicacia. Y no se diga, fulanizando
ostensiblemente la cuestión que cuando la judicatura, en el
apropiado ejercicio de su facultad de interpretar la
Constitución y los estatutos, dicta un fallo adverso a ciertos
intereses y a ciertos hombres pertenecientes a otro poder
del Estado, humilla y empequeñece con ello a ese poder,
colocándolo en condición inf erior y subalterna. En los
grandes conflictos y disputas sobre la cosa pública lo que,
en verdad, empequeñece y deslustra no es el contratiempo
y revés que se suf re—incidente inevitable en toda noble lid
por la razón, la verdad y la justicia—sino la falta de esa
serena dignidad, de ese sentido sobrio de propia inhibición
y propio dominio para aceptar y sufrir el revés, de todo eso
que es la mejor piedra de toque de la madurez política y de
las virtudes públicas en un régimen de carácter popular y
democrático. Los hombres van y vienen, pasan con sus
miserias y sus disputas en la interminable caravana del
tiempo; las instituciones quedan, y eso es lo que importa
salvar a toda costa por encima de las pasiones y caprichos
transeúntes del momento.
Si esta corte tiene, según la Constitución, facultad para
363
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 363

Vera vs. Avelino
conceder el remedio solicitado, es de suponer que los

recurridos acatarán el fallo que se dicte, pues son hombres
de orden y de ley, y serán los primeros en dar el ejemplo de
cumplir los mandatos de la Constitución, interpretados y
aplicados por la judicatura; pero si—lo que para nosotros es
imposible que ocurra—escudándose tras sus privilegios,
llegaren al extremo de cometer desacato, que cada cual
asuma su responsabilidad ante su conciencia, ante el país y
ante la historia. Esta Corte habrá cumplido solamente con
su deber, sin miedo y sin favor, y en la forma mejor que le
haya sido dable hacerlo en la medida de sus luces y
alcances.
En esta jurisdicción tenemos un precedente típico, claro
y terminante de orden coercitiva dirigida por el
departamento judicial al departamento ejecutivo del
gobierno. Nos referimos al asunto de Concepción contra
Paredes (42 Jur. Fil., 630) en el cual se trataba de una
solicitud de mandamiento de inhibición ordenando al
recurrido Secretario de Justicia que desistiera de poner en
vigor las disposiciones de la Ley No. 2941 que exigía a los
jueces de primera instancia que echasen suertes cada cinco
años para el cambio de distritos. Esta Corte declaró que la
ley popularmente conocida por ley de la "lotería judicial"
era anticonstitucional. Se concedió, por tanto, el
mandamiento de prohibición, haciéndose definitivo el
interdicto preliminar expedido.
Sólo nos queda por considerar el argumento deprimente,
desalentador de que el caso quo nos ocupa no tiene remedio
ni bajo la Constitución ni bajo las leyes ordinarias. A los
recurrentes se les dice que no tienen más que un recurso:
esperar las elecciones y plantear directamente la cuestión
ante el pueblo elector. Si los recurrentes tienen razón, el
pueblo les reivindicará eligiéndoles o elevando a su partido
al poder, repudiando, en cambio, a los recurridos o a su
partido. Algunas cosas se podrían decir acerca de este
argumento. Se podría decir, por ejemplo, que el remedio no
es expedito ni adecuado porque la mayoría de los recurridos
han sido elegidos para un período de seis años, así que no
se les podrá exigir ninguna responsabilidad por tan
364

Vera vs. Avelino
largo tiempo. Se podría decir también que en una elección

política entran muchos factores, y es posible que la cuestion
que se discute hoy, con ser tan férvida y tan palpitante,
quede, cuando llegue el caso, obscurecida por otros "issues"
más presionantes y decisivos. También se podría decir que,
independientemente de la justicia de su causa, un partido
minoritario siempre lucha con desventaja contra el partido
mayoritario.
Pero, a nuestro juicio, la mejor contestación al
argumento es que no cabe concebir que los redactores de la
Constitución filipina hayan dejado en medio de nuestro
sistema de gobierno un peligroso vacio en donde quedan
paralizados los resortes de la Constitución y de la ley, y el
ciudadano queda inerme, impotente frente a lo que él
considera flagrante transgresión de sus derechos., Los
redactores de la Constitución conocían muy bien nuestro
sistema de gobierno—sistema presidencial. Sabían muy
bien que éste no tiene la flexibilidad del tipo inglés—el
parlamentario. En Inglaterra y en los países que siguen su
sistema hay una magnífica válvula de seguridad política;
cuando surge una grave crisis, de esas que sacuden los
cimientos de la nación, el parlamento se disuelve y se
convocan elecciones generales para que el pueblo decida los
grandes "issues" del día. Así se consuman verdaderas
revoluciones, sin sangre, sin violencia. El sistema
presidencial no tiene esa válvula. El período que media de
elección a elección es inflexible. Entre nosotros, por
ejemplo, el período es de seis años para el Senado, y de
cuatro años para la Cámara de Representantes y los
gobiernos provinciales y municipales. Solamente se
celebran elecciones especiales para cubrir vacantes que
ocurran entre unas elecciones generales y otras. Se
comprenderá fácilmente que bajo un sistema así es harto
peligroso, es jugar con fuego el posibilitar situaciones donde
el individuo y el pueblo no puedan buscar el amparo de la
Constitución y de las leyes, bajo procesos ordenados y
expeditos, para proteger sus derechos.
365
VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 365

Vera vs. Avelino
En resumen, diremos lo siguiente:

Tenemos una Constitución escrita que representa el
genio político y social de nuestro pueblo, que encarna
nuestra historia, nuestras tradiciones, nuestra civilización
y cultura influida por las más grandes civilizaciones y
culturas conocidas en el mundo. Esa Constitución se
escribió no sólo para el Commonwealth, sino para la
República: está hecha para perdurar y sobrevivir a todas
las crisis y vicisitudes. Sobrevivió casi milagrosamente a la
peor de éstas—la ocupación japonesa. Es un formidable
instrumento de libertad y democracia. Su modelo más
cercano es la Constitución americana, pero en ciertos
respectos es una superación del modelo. Uno de sus
aspectos más originales y progresivos es indudablemente la
creación del Tribunal Electoral. Esta reforma constituye el
valiente reconocimiento de una dura realidad, al propio
tiempo que un enérgico remedio.
Pero en las constituciones la letra no es el todo, ni
siquiera lo principal. Lo importante, lo fundamental es el
espíritu, el carácter del pueblo; son las prácticas, las
costumbres, los hábitos políticos que vivifican e
implementan la letra escrita que es morgánica e inerte.
Exceptuando el paréntesis tragico de la guerra, nuestra
Constitución lleva unos ocho años de vigencia. En ese breve
período de tiempo se ha formado en su derredor una
limitada jurisprudencia, encaminada a robustecerla y
expandirla como instrumento de libertad y democracia. Los
casos de Angara y Planas, tan copiosamente comentados en
esta modesta disidencia, son típicamente representativos
de esa magnífica tendencia. La cuestión ahora es si ésta ha
de poder continuar sin estorbos, sin trabas, o ha de sufrir
un serio revés en su marcha ascendente. Nuestro sentir es
que se debe permitir el ordenado desenvolvimiento de la
Constitución en toda su anchura, bajo los amplísimos
auspicios de la libertad, en términos y perspectivas que
hagan de ella la formidable herramienta de democracia y
justicia que debe ser.
¡ Ojalá el resultado del presente asunto no sea parte
para estorbar ese desenvolvimiento!
Case dismissed.
366

Peyer vs. Peyer
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Vera v. Avelino, G.R. No. L-543, 31 August 1946

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vera v. Avelino, G.R. No. L-543, 31 August 1946

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vera v. Avelino, G.R. No. L-543, 31 August 1946

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[No. L-543.

August 31, 1946]

JOSE O. VERA ET AL., petitioners, vs. JOSE A. AVELINO

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SEPARATION OF POWERS;

2. ID.; ID.; JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT WITHOUT POWER

3. ID.; ID.; POWER OF SUPREME COURT TO ANNUL

4. ID.; ID.; JUDICIARY NOT REPOSITORY OF REMEDIES

5. ID.; ID.; PROHIBITION; SCOPE OF.—Prohibition refers

6. ID.; ID.; ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL; AUTHORITY OF;

8. ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; ID.—Independently of constitutional

9. ID.; ID.; CONGRESS; EXTENT OF LEGISLATIVE

VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 193

Vera vs. Avelino

10. ID.; ID.; ID.; SENATE; POWER TO ADOPT RULES FOR

11. ID.; ID.; SUPREME COURT; JUSTICES DESIGNATED

12. ID.; ID.; LEGISLATURE; PRESUMPTION THAT IT

13. ID.; ID.; CONSTRUCTION OF CONSTITUTION;

14. ID.; ID.; CONGRESS; DUTY OF PROCLAIMED

15. ID.; ID.; ID.; IMMUNITY OF MEMBERS FOR SPEECH

Per PERFECTO, J., dissenting:

16. CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL LAW;

17. ID.; CONSTITUTION; CO-AUTHORS IN BETTER

194 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Vera vs. Avelino

infused the ideas which boild in their minds, and gave a

18. In.; SENATE; "QUORUM" TO DO BUSINESS.—To do

19. CRIMINAL LAW; FAILURE TO DISCHARGE

21. CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL LAW; SENATE;

22. ID.; ELECTORAL COMMISSION; POWER OF; EXTENT.

23. ID.; SEPARATION OF POWERS; VULGAR NOTION OF.

VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 195

Vera vs. Avelino

The picture in their mental panorama offers, in effect, the

25. ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; WHOLE GOVERNMENT AS A UNIT.—

196 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Vera vs. Avelino

26. ID.; ID.; ID.; SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL;

27. ID.; SENATE; POWER TO SUSPEND MEMBERS, LACK

28. ID.; SEPARATION OF POWERS; SUPREME COURT;

VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 197

Vera vs. Avelino

29. ID.; ID.; ID.; POWER TO DECLARE LAW

30. ID.; ID.; ID.; ANGARA vs. ELECTORAL COMMISSION

31. CONTEMPT; SUPREME COURT; POWER TO PUNISH

32. CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL LAW;

33. ID.; CONSTITUTION; CHARACTER OF.—The

34. ID.; CONGRESS; LEGISLATIVE POWER NOT VESTED

ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Preliminary

The acts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Pursuant to a constitutional provision (section 4, Article X),

198 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

report on the national elections held the preceding month,

"WHEREAS, the minority report of the Hon. Vicente de

VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 199

'we know that as a result of this chaotic condition, many

200 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Romero, pending the hearing and decision on the protests

Way back in 1924, Senator Jose Alejandrino assaulted a

VOL. 77, AUGUST 31, 1946 201