8/19/2019 DS/A.D/SA,DASPL[PDSJKFHJSHFSDJSAHDJASDefensor-Santiago vs Guingona

1/2

FACTS:

The first regular session of the eleventh congress of the Senate of the Philippines convened on July27, 1998. Being the first regular session, the agenda of the day is the election of officers. Sen. arcelo!ernan and Sen. !rancisco Tatad "ere the candidates as Senate President no#inated $y Sen. Blas %pleand Sen. iria# &efensor'Santiago respectively. By a vote of 2( to 2, )8* Senator !ernan "as declared theduly elected President of the Senate. Senator Tatad thereafter #anifested that, "ith the agree#ent of Senator Santiago, allegedly the only other #e#$er of the #inority, he "as assu#ing the position of #inority leader. +e eplained that those "hohad voted for Senator !ernan co#prised the -#aority,/ "hile only those "ho had voted for hi#, thelosing no#inee, $elonged to the -#inority./

On July 30, 1998, the majority leader informed the body that he was in receipt of a letter signed by the seven a!as"#$%&"$'&( senators,)9* stating that they had elected +enator 

uingona as the minority leader-

Senators Santiago and Tatad filed $efore the 0ourt the su$ect petition for quo warranto, alleging in the#ain that Senator uingona had $een usurping, unla"fully holding and eercising the position of Senate

#inority leader, a position that, according to the#, rightfully $elonged to Senator Tatad.

SS34S5

1- &oes the %ourt have jurisdiction over the petition.

/- as there an actual violation of the %onstitution.

3- as espondent uingona usurping, unlawfully holding and e2ercising the

 position of +enate minority leader.

- &id espondent 4ernan act with grave abuse of discretion in recogni5ing

espondent uingona as the minority leader.

+46&5

1- 6nitially the court declined to resolve the issue, in their separate %omments, contend in

common that the issue of who is the lawful +enate minority leader is an internal matter  pertaining e2clusively to the domain of the legislature, over which the %ourt cannot

e2ercise jurisdiction without transgressing the principle of separation of  powers- 7llegedly, no constitutional issue is involved, as the fundamental law does not

 provide for the office of a minority leader in the +enate- he legislature alone has the

full discretion to provide for such office and, in that event, to determine the procedure of selecting its occupant-

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/134577.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/134577.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/134577.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/134577.htm#_edn8

8/19/2019 DS/A.D/SA,DASPL[PDSJKFHJSHFSDJSAHDJASDefensor-Santiago vs Guingona

2/2

Upon a motion for reconsideration, however, the Court ultimately assumed jurisdiction (1)

"in the light of subsequent events which justify its intervention" and (!) because the

resolution of the issue hinged on the interpretation of the constitutional provision on the

presence of a quorum to hold a session and therein elect a enate #resident.

$he Court ruled that the validity of the selection of members of the enate %lectoral$ribunal by the senators was not a political question& $he choice of these members did

not depend on the enate's "full discretionary authority," but was subject to mandatory

constitutional limitations&

2. he court finds no violaton in the constitution- he plain and unambiguous words of the subject

constitutional clause simply mean that the +enate (resident must obtain the votes of 

more than one half of all   the senators- #ot by any construal does it thereby

delineate whocomprise the majority,: much less the minority,: in the said body- 7ndthere is no showing that the framers of our %onstitution had in mind other than the usual

meanings of these terms- o la" or regulation states that the defeated candidate shallauto#atically $eco#e the #inority leader.

The #ethod of choosing "ho "ill $e such other officers is #erely a derivative of the eercise of theprerogative conferred $y the aforeuoted constitutional provision. Therefore, such #ethod #ust $eprescri$ed $y the Senate itself not $y the 0ourt.

. Usurpation generally refers to unauthori5ed arbitrary assumption and e2ercise of 

 power );/*  by one without color of title or who is not entitled by law thereto- 7 quo

warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine the right or title to thecontested public- 6n order for a quo warranto proceeding to be successful, the person

suing must show that he or she has a clear  right to the contested office- here being no

clear guidelines set by the %onstitution, the statutes, or the +enate, in no way can it be

said that illegality or irregularity tainted espondent uingonaa!as"#$%&"$'&(? that +en- uingona be the minority leader- +uch formal recognition by espondent 4ernan came only after at

least two +enate sessions and a caucus, wherein both sides were liberally allowed to

articulate their standpoints-

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/134577.htm#_edn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/134577.htm#_edn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/134577.htm#_edn52