Political Questions:

1. A ‘political question’ is one the resolution of which has been vested by the Constitution exclusively in either the
people, in the exercise of their sovereign capacity, or in which full discretionary authority has been delegated to a
co-equal branch of the Government.
2. Thus, while courts can determine questions of legality with respect to governmental action, they cannot review
government policy and the wisdom thereof, for these questions have been vested by the Constitution in the
Executive and Legislative Departments.

JOSE O. VERA, ET AL., petitioners,

vs.
JOSE A. AVELINO, ET AL., respondents.

G.R. No. L-543 August 31, 1946

FACTS:

Commission on Elections submitted last May 1946 to the President and the Congress of the Philippines a report
regarding the national elections held the previous month. It stated that by reason of certain specified acts of
terrorism and violence in the province of Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Bulacan and Tarlac, the voting in said region did
not reflect the true and free expression of the popular will.

During the session, when the senate convened on May 25, 1946, a pendatum resolution was approved referring to
the report ordering that Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose E. Romero – who had been included among the 16
candidates for senator receiving the highest number of votes, proclaimed by the Commissions on Elections – shall
not be sworn, nor seated, as members of the chamber, pending the termination of the of the protest lodged against
their election.

Petitioners thus immediately instituted an action against their colleagues responsible for the resolution, praying for
an order to annul it and compelling respondents to permit them to occupy their seats and to exercise their
senatorial prerogative. They also allege that only the Electoral Tribunal had jurisdiction over contests relating to
their election, returns and qualifications. Respondents assert the validity of the pendatum resolution.

ISSUES:

1.Whether the Commission on Elections has the jurisdiction to determine whether or not votes cast in the said
provinces are valid.

2.Whether administration of oath and the sitting of Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose Romero should be
deferred pending hearing and decision on the protests lodged against their elections.

RULING:

The Supreme Court refused to intervene, under the concept of separation of powers, holding that the case was not
a “contest”, and affirmed the inherent right of the legislature to determine who shall be admitted to its
membership.
Mandamus will not lie against the legislative body, its members, or its officers, to compel the
performance of duties purely legislative in their character which therefore pertain to their legislative functions and
over which they have exclusive control. The courts cannot dictate action in this respect without a gross usurpation
of power. So it has been held that where a member has been expelled by the legislative body, the courts have no
power, irrespective of whether the expulsion was right or wrong, to issue a mandate to compel his reinstatement

Under our form of government the judicial department has no power to revise even the most arbitrary and
unfair action of the legislative department, or of either house thereof, taken in pursuance of the power committed
exclusively to that department by the constitution.

the Senate resolved that the Justice issuing the writ had "unlawfully invaded the constitutional privileges
and prerogatives of the Senate of the United States and of three Senators; and was without jurisdiction to grant the
rule, and Senators are directed to make no appearance in response thereto."
Case dismissed.