Arroyo vs.guingona

7/31/2019 Arroyo vs.guingona

1/27

[G.R. No. 134577 November 18, 1998]SANTIAGOvs.GUINGONAFACTS:The majority leader informed the body that they had elected Senator Guingona as theminorityleader. By virtue thereof, the Senate President formally recognized Senator Guingona as the

minority leader of the Senate. The following day, Senators Santiago and Tatad filed before thisCourt the subject petition for quo warranto, alleging in the main that Senator Guingona hadbeenusurping, unlawfully holding and exercising the position of Senate minority leader, apositionthat, according to them, rightfully belonged to Senator Tatad.

From the parties' pleadings, the Court formulated the following issues for resolution:

1. Does the Court have jurisdiction over the petition?

2. Was there an actual violation of the Constitution?

3. Was Respondent Guingona usurping, unlawfully holding and exercising the

position of Senate minority leader?

4. Did Respondent Fernan act with grave abuse of discretion in recognizingResp ondent Guingona as the minority leader?

RULING:The principle of separation of powers ordains that each of the three great branchesof government has exc lus ive cogn izanceo f and is supreme in mat te rs fa l l ing w i t h in i t s ownconstitutionally allocated sphere. Constitutional respect and abecoming regard for she sovereignacts, of a coequal branch prevents this Court from prying intothe internal workings of the Senate.Where no prov ision of the Constitution or the laws or

even the Rules of the Senate is clearl yshown to have been violated, disregarded oroverlooked, grave abuse of discretion cannot beimputed to Senate officials for acts donewithin their competence and authority. This Court will beneither a tyrant nor a wimp; rather, it willremain steadfast and judicious in upholding the rule andmajesty of the law.

After a close perusal of the pleadings and a careful deliberation on the arguments, pro and con,the Court finds that no constitutional or legal infirmity or grave abuse of discretion attendedtherecognition of and the assumption into office by Respondent Guingona as theSenate minorityleader.

First Issue

:The Court's Jurisdiction

InTaada v. Cueno, this Court endeavored to define political question. And we said that"it refers to 'those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the peoplein their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has beendelegated to thelegislative or executive branch of the government.' It is concernedwith issues dependent uponthewisdom not [the] legality, of a particular measure."


2/27

In the instant controversy, the petitioners one of whom is Senator Santiago, a well-

knownconstitutionalist try to hew closely to these jurisprudential parameters. They claim that

Section16 (1), Article VI of the constitution, has not been observed in the selection of the Senate

minorityleader. They also invoke the Court's "expanded" judicial power "to determine whether

or not therehas been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" on

the part of respondents.

In light of the aforesaid allegations of petitioners, it is clear that this Court has jurisdiction over

thepetition. It is well within the power and jurisdiction of the Court to inquire

whether indeed theSenate or its officials committed a violation of the Constitution or gravely

abused their discretionin the exercise of their functions and prerogatives.

Second Issue

Violation of the Constitution

Petitioners contend that the constitutional provision requiring the election of the Senate

President"by majority vote of all members" carries with it a judicial duty to determine

the concepts of "majority" and "minority," as well as who may elect a minority leader. They

argue that "majority" inthe aforequoted constitutional provision refers to that group of

senators who (1) voted for thewinning Senate President and (2) accepted committee

chairmanships. Accordingly, those whovoted for the losing nominee and accepted no

such chairmanships comprise the minority,towhom the r igh t to de te rmine the minor i t y leader be longs . As a resu l t , pe

t i t i oners asser t , Respondent Guingona cannot be the legitimate minority leader, since he

voted for

RespondentFernan as Senate President. Furthermore, the members of the Lakas-

NUCD-UMDP cannotchoose the minority leader, because they did not belong to the minority,

having voted for Fernanand accepted committee chairmanships.

We believe, however, that the interpretation proposed by petitioners finds no clear supportfromthe Constitution, the laws, the Rules of the Senate or even from practices of the UpperHouse.The term "majority" has been judicially defined a number of times. Whenrefe rr ing to a certainnumber out of a total or aggregate, it simply "means the number greaterthan half or more thanhalf of any total." The plain and unambiguous words of the subjectconstitutional clause simplymean that the Senate President must obtain the votes of more thanone half of all the senators.Not by any construal does it thereby delineate

Who comprise the "majority," much less the"minority," in the said body. And there is noshowingthat the framers of our Constitution had inmind other than the usual meanings of theseterms.


3/27

In effect, while the Constitution mandates that the President of the Senate must be elected byanumber constituting more than one half of all the members thereof, it doesnot provide that themembers who will not vote for him shallipso facto constitute the "minority," who could therebyelect the minority leader. Verily, nolaw or regulation states that the defeated candidate shallautomatically become theminority leader.

While the Constitution is explicit on the manner of electing a Senate President anda HouseSpeaker , i t i s , however , dead s i len t on the mannerof sel ect ing the oth er of f ice rs in bot hchambers of Congress. All that theCharter says is that "[e]ach House shall choose such other officers as it may deemnecessary."To our mind, themethod of choosing who will besucho ther o f f i ce rs i s mere l y a de r iva t i ve o f t he exerc ise o f the p re roga t iv econferred by theaforequoted constitutional provision. Therefore, such method must beprescribed by the Senateitself, not by this Court.

In this regard, the Constitution vests in each house of Congress the power "to determine

the rulesof its proceedings."Pursuant thereto, the Senate formulated and adopted aset of rules togovern its internal affairs.


4/27


5/27


6/27


7/27


8/27


9/27


10/27


11/27


12/27


13/27


14/27


15/27


16/27


17/27


18/27


19/27


20/27


21/27


22/27


23/27


24/27


25/27


26/27


27/27

Documents

Arroyo vs.guingona