Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Vera vs. Avelino Election Dispute

    Uploaded by

    Vern Villarica Castillo
    2K views2 pages
    1. The Supreme Court refused to intervene in a petition questioning the validity of the election results that led to Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose E. Romero being elected as members of the chamber. 2. The petition claimed that the elections in four provinces were conducted under terrorism and intimidation. However, the Supreme Court held that it is outside their jurisdiction to intervene in legislative membership matters. 3. While no man should profit from an unlawful election, the Supreme Court also held that the legislature has the inherent right to determine its own membership.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Vera vs Avelino

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. The Supreme Court refused to intervene in a petition questioning the validity of the election results that led to Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose E. Romero being elected as members of the chamber. 2. The petition claimed that the elections in four provinces were conducted under terrorism and intimidation. However, the Supreme Court held that it is outside their jurisdiction to intervene in legislative membership matters. 3. While no man should profit from an unlawful election, the Supreme Court also held that the legislature has the inherent right to determine its own membership.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2K views2 pages

    Vera vs. Avelino Election Dispute

    Uploaded by

    Vern Villarica Castillo
    1. The Supreme Court refused to intervene in a petition questioning the validity of the election results that led to Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose E. Romero being elected as members of the chamber. 2. The petition claimed that the elections in four provinces were conducted under terrorism and intimidation. However, the Supreme Court held that it is outside their jurisdiction to intervene in legislative membership matters. 3. While no man should profit from an unlawful election, the Supreme Court also held that the legislature has the inherent right to determine its own membership.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    Vera vs. Avelino (77 Phil 192) August 31, 1946 Jose O.

    Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose E. Romero, petitioners Jose A. Avelino et al., respondents Facts:
    1. On May 25, 1946, a pendum resolution was submitted ordering the following

    candidates: Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose E. Romero to their seats as members of chamber. Furthermore, they should not swear into office for their success on the elections was proposed to be invalid. The resolution was passed by their constituents who questioned the validity of the votes they garnered.
    2. It was reported that during the National Elections, provinces Nueva Ecija,

    Pampanga, Tarlac and Bulacan was under terrorism. Moreover, the election returns of the said provinces were null or void for they believe that the great majority of voters were coerced or intimidated suffered from the paralysis of judgment, the people were deprived of their right to suffrage. 3. The ballot boxes from Nueva Ecija were stolen by armed bands in the barrios of municipalities of Bongabon, Gapan, Sta. Rosa and Guimba. 4. Many residents of the four provinces have voluntarily banished themselves from their home towns to avoid being victimized or losing their lives. Moreover, bodies were found with notes attached to their necks Bumoto kami kay Roxas after the election. Issues: 1. Whether or not the Supreme Court has the powers to intervene with the petition 2. Whether or not the petitioners Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose E. Vera should be deferred to seat as members of the chamber

    Held:

    1. No. The Supreme Court refused to intervene with the petition. According to the constitution, there should be separation of powers with the three branches namely: the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary. Each is independent from each other and each has specific roles to perform. The role of judiciary is to foresee that the laws are properly delivered to the society and that these laws are constitutional. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the case was not a contest and affirmed the inherent right of the legislature to determine who shall be admitted to its membership. 2. Yes. The Supreme Court dismissed the case for as mentioned above, the legislative has the power to determine who shall be admitted to its membership. Also, 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.

    You might also like