G.R. No. L 2821 Jose Avelino plaintiff vs. Mariano Cuenco respondent March 4 1!4!

"acts# $he court %& a vote of '() *ustices a+ainst '4) resolved to den& the petition. ,n "e%ruar& 18 1!4! -enator Loren.o $anada re/uested for his ri+ht to spea0 on the ne1t session to for2ulate char+es a+ainst the then senate president Jose Avelino. 3t 4as approved. 5efore the session %e+an $anada and -anidad filed a resolution enu2eratin+ the alle+ations a+ainst the senate president and orderin+ the investi+ations of these. $here 4as a sufficient nu2%er of senators to constitute a /uoru21 and the petitioner 4as alread& in the office %ut he prolon+ed the start of the session. $here see2ed to %e a conspirac& a pre2editated plan a+ainst -en. $anada 4herein those 4ho 4ere in Avelino6s 4in+ did dela&in+ tactics as to further dela& the for2er to deliver his speech. 7urin+ the session petitioner 4al0s out of the follo4ed %& so2e other senators. -enate 8resident 8ro9te2pore then su++ested the session continued for the %enefit of those 4ho approved of the speech those 4ho sta&ed. -en. $anada 4as then finall& a%le to deliver his privile+e speech. -enator -anidad su%2itted his 2otion for approval and this 4as approved unani2ousl&. -enate 8resident 8ro9 te2pore then introduced resolution (: declarin+ vacant the senate presidenc& and desi+natin+ ;on. Mariano Cuenco as -enate president. Later then too0 oath. 8hilippine then reco+ni.ed Cuenco as actin+ senate president. Avelino in his petition of /uo 4arranto as0ed the court to declare hi2 ri+htful 8resident of the -enate and oust and Cuenco. 3ssue# 13s this issue in the court6s *urisdiction< 3f so are resolutions '(:) and '(8) validl& approved< 2 -hould Avelino6s petition %e approved< ;eld = Ratio# 1No. $he issue is not 4ithin the po4er of the court %ased on the principle of the separation of po4ers. $he issue is political in nature. Also the senate 4as +ranted %& the constitution the po4er to elect its o4n president thus the *udiciar& should not interfere. 3f the petition 4as accepta%le thou+h his re2ed& 4ould lie in the senate hall and not in the -upre2e Court. 3f the court did have *urisdiction over the 2atter it 4ould %e assu2ed that the session 4hich 4as presided %& the -enate 8resident 8ro9te2pore 4as a continuation of the session and the leavin+ of the 2inorit& 'the 1> senators) could not have affected and prevented the decision 2ade %& the 12 4hich the& unani2ousl& a+reed upon. $he 12 4ho sta&ed 4ere enou+h to %e a /uoru2 and their decision 'resolutions) 4ere valid. 2 No. -ince alread& esta%lished the -C has no *urisdiction over this 2ater and the /uoru2 have alread& unani2ousl& decided to replace hi2 as senate president 4hich function is ri+htfull& placed upon the2 %& the constitution. ?As alread& stated the '() *ustices herein a%ove 2entioned voted to dis2iss the petition 4ithout costs.

Majority, which is 50% + 1. In this case there were 24 senators, the quorum should consist of 1 mem!ers. If there is no quorum, there should !e no transactions.