case digest

1. LORENZO M. TAÑADA and DIOSDADO
MACAPAGAL, petitioners,
vs.
MARIANO JESUS CUENCO, FRANCISCO A.
DELGADO, ALFREDO CRUZ, CATALINA
CAYETANO, MANUEL SERAPIO, PLACIDO
REYES, and FERNANDO HIPOLITO in his
capacity as cashier and disbursing
officer, respondents.
G.R. No. L-10520 | 103 Phil 1051 | February 28, 1957 | En
Banc | Justice Concepcion
Political and International Law | Constitutional Law | Separation of Powers | Political
Question
The term “political question” connotes xxx a question of policy. It
refers to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be
decided by the people in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to
which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the xxx
branch of the government.
FACTS:
Pending before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) was an election
protest filed by members of the Citizens Party (CP) who lost to
members of the Nacionalista Party (NP). The Senate was at the time
composed of 23 members of the NP and one of the CP — petitioner
Sen. Tañada. When the SET was being organized, Sen. Tañada, in
behalf of the CP, nominated himself alone. Sen. Primicias, a member of
the NP, then nominated “not on behalf of the [NP] but on behalf of

2. the Committee on Rules of the Senate” Sens. Delgado and respondent
Cuenco “to complete the membership of the Tribunal”. This he claims
is the mandate of the Constitution which reads: “xxx Each Electoral
Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be
Justices of the Supreme Court xxx and the remaining six shall be
Members of the [House] 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.
xxx.” Over the objection of Sen. Tañada, Sens. Delgado and Cuenco
were chosen to sit in the SET. Sen. Tañada now contests them in Court.
Respondents aver, among others, that the SC has no jurisdiction on
the matter as the issue is a political question and not judicial.
ISSUE:
Is the issue a political question beyond the ambit of judicial inquiry?
RULING:
No. The issue at bar is not a political question for the Senate is not
clothed with “full discretionary authority” in the choice of members of
the SET.¹ The exercise of its power thereon is subject to constitutional
limitations. It is clearly within the legitimate prove of the judicial
department to pass upon the validity the proceedings in connection
therewith. We have not only jurisdiction, but also the duty to consider
and determine the principal issue² raised by the parties herein.
¹ The question is said to be political when it is a matter which is to be
exercised by the people in their primary political capacity. It is judicial
when it is a matter that has been specifically delegated to some other
department or particular officer of the government, with discretionary
power to act. In short, the term “political question” connotes a

3. question of policy; that is, it refers to “those questions which, under
the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign
capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been
delegated to the Legislature or Executive branch of the Government.”
It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality,
of a particular measure. (Tañada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil 1051)
² On the issue on whether the election of Sens. Delgado and Cuenco is
valid, the Court ruled in the negative. It was held that the clear
intention of the framers of the Constitution in prescribing the manner
for organizing the Electoral Tribunals is to prevent the majority party
from ever controlling the Electoral Tribunals, and that the structure
thereof be founded upon the equilibrium between the majority and
the minority parties with the Justices of the SC to insure greater
political justice in the determination of election contests. Thus, the
party having the largest number of votes in the Senate may nominate
not more than three members thereof to the SET, and the party having
the second largest number of votes in the Senate has the exclusive
right to nominate the other three Senators. The Senate may not elect,
as members of the SET, those who have not been nominated by the
political parties specified in the Constitution; hence, the Committee on
Rules for the Senate has no standing to validly make such nomination.
(Ibid.)