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.

Issues:

- 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

Held:

- 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.