Vera vs. Avelino (G.R.

L-543)
Facts:
In May 25, 1946, the Philippine Senate passed a resolution excluding Senators-elect Jose O.
Vera,Ramon Diokno, and Jose E. Romero from taking their seats in the Senate while the
election
protest against them was still pending. The protest involved alleged electoral fraud due to
certainspecified acts of terrorism and violence in Pampanga, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija,
and Tarlac.Petitioners are now filing this action against the Senate resolution, praying for its annulment
andcompelling respondents to let them take their seats.
Issues:
WON the Court had jurisdiction over the caseWON the Senate has exceeded its powersWON 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 hadalready established this in
Alejandrino vs. Quezon
. It is however alleged that the ruling in
Angaravs. 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 negatethis
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
powerto promulgate orders to maintain its prestige and dignity. It could be said to have done
this in thiscase 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
Manilaand assume office, but
it does not imply that the House could not deny admission in thecase 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 Congres
s.
Therefore, the Court cannot question or permit respondents to question the votes made
regardingthe resolution before it.