G.R. No. L-4638 May 8, 1951
TOMAS L. CABILI, ESTEBAN R. ABADA, ENRIQUE B. MAGALONA, JUSTINIANO MONTANO, GERONIMA PECSON, MACARIO PERALTA JR., LORENZO SUMULONG, and TEODORO DE VERA, plaintiffs, vs. VICENTE FRANCISCO, PABLO ANGELES DAVID, EMILIANO T. TIRONA, QUINTIN PAREDES, RAMON TORRES, and the SENATE, defendants.

FACTS

Shortly after its organization in January 1950, the Philippine Senate elected twelve of its members to constitute the Senate’s representation in the Commission on Appointments. In January 1951, a new political alignment divided the Senate into two factions: the “Little Senate” and the “Democratic Group.” The Democratic Group, commanding a majority, moved to declare vacant all twelve Senate positions in the Commission on Appointments. Subsequently, the Senate appointed seven senators from the Democratic Group to the Commission and left the remaining five positions for the Little Senate to propose. The Little Senate, opposing the reorganization on constitutional grounds, declined to name its members. Consequently, the Democratic Group proposed, and the Senate approved, a motion adding five senators from the Little Senate to the Commission. This reorganization changed the party ratio in the Commission from 8-2-2 (Liberal Party, Avelino Liberal Party, Nacionalista Party) to 7-3-2. Eight senators from the Little Senate filed a petition seeking to annul the reorganization resolutions and to secure the reinstatement of Senator Enrique B. Magalona to the Commission.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the petition.
2. Whether the Senate has the power to change its members in the Commission on Appointments after the initial selection.

RULING

1. On Jurisdiction: A majority of six justices (the Chief Justice, and Justices Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, and Jugo) held that the matter is beyond the Court’s jurisdiction. They found it analogous to Alejandro vs. Quezon and Vera et al. vs. Avelino et al., where the Court declined to intervene in matters of senatorial prerogatives. The conditions that prompted the Court to assume jurisdiction in Avelino vs. Cuenco were not present. Three justices (Tuason, Reyes, and Bautista Angelo) believed the Court had jurisdiction due to an alleged serious constitutional violation requiring judicial intervention.
2. On the Senate’s Power to Reorganize: Four justices (the Chief Justice, Bengzon, Reyes, and Jugo) held that the Constitution, by providing for membership based on party representation, intended that membership should reflect the current political alignment in the Senate. Therefore, the Senate has the power to reshuffle its members in the Commission in accordance with political changes, as the Commission is a “creature and dependent” of the Houses, with members serving “at the pleasure” of the House. Conversely, four justices (Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, and Bautista Angelo) opined that the Constitution contemplates stability of tenure for Commission members until the Senate reorganizes after a new general election, as the initial selection within thirty days of the Senate’s organization is mandatory and reflects the will of the electorate at that time. Justice Pablo declined to express a view on this issue as he deemed it unnecessary.
DISPOSITIVE:
The petition was dismissed without costs. Justice Feria took no part.