Digest Author: Dodot
Santiago v. Guingona Jr. (1998) Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
Petition: Special Civil Action. Quo Warranto
Petitioners: Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago and Sen. Francisco S.
Tatad
Respondent: Sen. Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. and Sen. Marcelo B.
Fernan
Ponente: J. Panganiban
Date: 18 September 1998
Facts:
27 June 1998 Senate convened first reg. session, 11th
Congress
o Sen. Fernan elected as Senate President (20 to
2); Sen. Tatad had also been nominated, by Sen.
Santiago
Sen. Ople, Senate President Pro
Tempore
Sen. Drilon, Majority Leader
o By the end of the session, no consensus/decision
on who would be Minority Leader
Sen. Tatad manifested that he would
be assuming the position of minority
leader
The contention: those who
had voted for Fernan
constituted the majority;
those who didnt (Tatad and
Santiago), the minority
Sen. Flavier: Lakas-NUCD-UMDP (7
members, thus, a minority) had chosen
Sen. Guingona as the Minority Leader
30 July 1998 Majority Leader said he had received a
letter signed by the 7 Lakas Senators, stating that they had
selected Guingona as the Minority Leader
o Senate President formally recognized Sen.
Guingona as Minority Leader
31 July 1998 Sen. Santiago and Tatad filed petition for
quo warranto
Pertinent laws/provisions/concepts:
Sec 16(1), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution
The Senate shall elect its President and the House of
Representatives, its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its
respective Members. Each House shall choose such other
officers as it may deem necessary.
Sec. 16(3), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish
its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence
of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A
penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty
days.
Sec 1, Par. 2, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law.
actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
Definition: political question (Tanada v. Cuenco [1957])
Those questions which, under the Constitution are to be
decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to
which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the
legislative or executive branch of the government. It is
concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not [the]
legality, of a particular measure.
Quo warranto proceedings
Legal remedy to determine the right to a contested public office
and to oust the holder from its enjoyment. (Lota v. CA [1961])
In order for a quo warranto proceeding to be successful, the
person suing must show that he/she has a clear right to the
contested office or to use/exercise the functions of the office
allegedly usurped or unlawfully held by the respondent.
Issues:
1. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over the
petition? (YES)
2. Was there an actual violation of the Constitution? (NO)
3. Was Guingona usurping, unlawfully holding and exercising
the position of Senate Minority Leader? (NO)
4. Did Fernan act with grave abuse of discretion in
recognizing Guingona as the Minority Leader? (NO)
Ruling/Ratio Decidendi:
1. YES.
Within the jurisdiction of the court to
inquire if Senate (or its officials) violated the
Consti. or gravely abused their discretion in
the exercise of their functions.
Doctrine: jurisdiction over subject matter of
a case, determined by the allegations of the
complaint, regardless of whether the
petitioner is entitled to the relief asserted.
(Alleje v CA [1995], Sarmiento v. CA [1995],
Times Broadcasting Network v. CA [1997], Chico
v. CA [1998])
o Petitioners allegation: Sec 16(1),
Art. VI not observed in selection of
Senate Minority Leader: invoke
SCs judicial power to determine
whether or not there has been
grave abuse of discretion.
Invoked Avelino v. Cuenco:
tackled scope of SCs judicial
review questions involving
interpretation/application of
a provision of the Consti. or
law, including rules of either
house of Congress (even acts
political in nature, whenever
Digest Author: Dodot
there are constitutionally
imposed limits on powers or
functions conferred upon
political bodies); in the case,
SC assumed jurisdiction in
deciding who was the rightful
Senate President resolution
hinged on the interpretation
of the constitutional
provision on the presence of
a quorum.
o Respondents comment: issue an
internal matter pertaining exclusively
to the domain of the legislature SC
cannot exercise jurisdiction w/o
transgressing separation-of-powers.
No Constitutional issue
involved: Consti. does not
provide for the office of a
minority leader in the
Senate: Senate has full
discretion to provide for
office, and procedure in
selecting its occupant
Avelino does not apply: no
question involving
interpretation/application of
Consti., laws, or rules of
Senate.
Other examples of SC exercising jurisdiction over
acts of Exec./Legis.:
o Lansang v. Garcia (1971): SC has
authority to inquire into existence of
factual bases required by the Consti.
for suspension of writ of habeas corpus
not to supplant Executive, only to
check if Executive went beyond
constitutional limits of his jurisdiction.
o Javellana v. Executive Secretary (1973)
Judicial Power to check grave abuse of
discretion more explicitly granted to the SC
in the 1987 Consti. (Sec 1, Art. VIII)
o Tanada v. Angara (1997): petitioners
sought to nullify Senate concurrence in
ratifying the WTO Agreement right
and duty of judiciary to settle issues
where one branch of govt infringed
Consti.; but SC should only strike down
acts of co-equal branches on two
grounds, (1) unconstitutionality or
illegality, or (2) grave abuse of
discretion
Some post-1987 Consti. examples of cases where
SC decided it did not have jurisdiction:
o Co v. HRET (1991): full authority
conferred upon HRET as sole judges of
all contests relating to election returns,
qualifications of members no grave
abuse of discretion.
o Arroyo v. De Venecia (1997): on
whether a bill had been properly
approved by the legislative body
matter concerned with internal
procedure of the House.
2. NO.
Congress has the power/prerogative to provide
for its officers: to prescribe the parameters for
the exercise of this prerogative.
o To intrude on the jurisdiction of the
legislature (in the case) would amount
to Judicial Legislation a clear breach
of separation-of-powers.
o In the absence of Consti. prov., laws, or
specific rules SC devoid of any basis
upon which to determine the legality
of acts of the Senate.
Petitioners argument:
o Majority must take its definition
from Sec. 16(1), Art. VI: Majority =
those who voted for Senate President;
thus, Minority = those who did not
vote for Senate President.
Thus, Guingona cannot be
Senate Minority Leader
because (1) he voted for
Fernan and (2) the bloc of
Senators who voted for him
also voted for Fernan
SC: argument has no clear support from
Consti.
o Judicial definition of majority:
number greater than half or more than
half of any total. (Perez v. De la Cruz
[1969], Perfecto concurring opinion in
Avelino v. Cuenca)
o Consti. requirement: Senate President
must get votes of more than one half
of all the Senators does not provide
that members who will not vote
for him shall ipso facto constitute
the minority.
Precedent cited by Guingona:
in 8th Congress, nomination
of Sen. Salonga as Senate
President was seconded by a
member of the minority
Sen. Joseph Estrada.
o SC: unlike with selection of Senate
President, Consti. is not explicit in the
manner of selecting the Minority
Leader must be prescribed by the
Senate. (Consti. vests in each house of
Congress the power to determine the
rules of its proceedings. [Sec. 16(3),
Art. VI])
SC: neither has argument have clear support of
Rules: the Rules of the Senate do not provide for
the positions of majority and minority leaders.
3. NO.
Petitioners unable to prove clearly and
sufficiently their entitlement to the office of the
Senate minority leader.
o Absent any clear-cut guidelines, no
way to establish that illegality or
Digest Author: Dodot

irregularity tainted Guingonas

assumption of the office of the Senate
minority leader.
4. NO.
Fernan not guilty of capricious or whimsical
exercise of judgment, or of an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion or
hostility.
o Guingona belongs to Lakas, a minority
party
o Recognition came after at least two
Senate sessions and a caucus, where
both sides allowed to articulate their
standpoints.

Decision: Petition Dismissed

Dissenting Opinion: J. Mendoza

Centered on whether the SC had jurisdiction over the case:

Mendoza disagreed with the majority and opined that the
SC did not have jurisdiction.
o Political question: SC must respect internal
affairs of its co-equal branches
o Courts have no power to inquire into the internal
org. of a house of Congress, except as the
question affects the rights of third parties or a
specific constitutional limitation is involved.
For this reason, the SC had, in the past,
declined to assume jurisdiction over
cases involving the discipline of
members of the Legis. (Alejandrino v.
Quezon [1924] suspension of a
Senator for assaulting a fellow Senator;
Osmena v. Pendatun [1960]
suspension of a Senator for imputing
bribery to Pres. Garcia) and the
interpretation of rules of procedure of
a house (Arroyo v. De Venecia).