Vera vs. Avelino (G.R.

L-543) Facts: In May 25, 1946, the Philippine Senate passed a resolution excluding Senators-elect Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno, and Jose E. Romero from taking their seats in the Senate while the election protest against them was still pending. The protest involved alleged electoral fraud due to certain specified acts of terrorism and violence in Pampanga, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, and Tarlac. Petitioners are now filing this action against the Senate resolution, praying for its annulment and compelling respondents to let them take their seats.

Issues: Held: -

WON the Court had jurisdiction over the case WON the Senate has exceeded its powers WON it was respondents legally inescapable duty to permit petitioners to take their seats WON respondents can be called to account for their votes regarding the assailed resolution

Due to the separation of powers, the Court has no actual jurisdiction over the case. It had already established this in Alejandrino vs. Quezon. It is however alleged that the ruling in Angara vs. Electoral Commission modified this doctrine; this is not true as the Court specifically cited Alejandrino in Angara to justify their lack of jurisdiction over that case, as well as this one. The Senate did not exceed its powers. Independent of any constitutional or statutory grant, it still has the power to inquire into the credentials of any member and that members right to participate in its deliberations. o The assignment of contests regarding elections to the Electoral Tribunal does not negate this power. It may also be approached in the viewpoint of the Senate exercising its powers under Art. VI, Sec. 10 (3) of the 1935 Constitution to set its own rules for its proceedings, and it exercises this power to promulgate orders to maintain its prestige and dignity. It could be said to have done this in this case in order to make sure that these Senators really were elected properly. Section 12 of Commonwealth Act 725 provides that those who are elected are to come to Manila and assume office, but it does not imply that the House could not deny admission in the case of disqualification. The Constitution provides, under Art. VI, Sec. 15, that Senators and Congressmen cannot be questioned in any other place for any speech or debate made in Congress. Therefore, the Court cannot question or permit respondents to question the votes made regarding the resolution before it.