LORENZO M.

TAÑADA and DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL, petitioners,

vs.
MARIANO JESUS CUENCO, FRANCISCO A. DELGADO, ALFREDO CRUZ, CATALINA CAYETANO, MANUEL
SERAPIO, PLACIDO REYES, and FERNANDO HIPOLITO in his capacity as cashier and disbursing officer,
respondents.

G.R. No. L-10520 February 28, 1957

Facts:

 There was a general election on November 1955.

 Proclaimed elected were contested by petitioners.
 The election protests were brought before the Senate Electoral Tribunal as Senate Electoral Case No. 4, to be
decided upon.
 In the SET, 6 senators which will be nominated by the Senate and 3 justices designated by the Chief Justice will
become members of the deciding body.
 On February 22, 1956, upon nomination of Senator Cipriano Primicias, on behalf of the Nacionalista Party, chose
Senators Jose P. Laurel, Fernando Lopez and Cipriano Primicias, as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal.
 Upon nomination of petitioner Senator Tañada, on behalf of the Citizens Party, the petitioner was then chosen by
the Senate to be a member of SET. (He nominated himself.)
 Then, upon nomination of Senator Primicias on behalf of the Committee on Rules of the Senate, and over the
objections of Senators Tañada and Sumulong, the Senate chose respondents Senators Mariano J. Cuenco and
Francisco A. Delgado (NP members) as members of the same Electoral Tribunal.
 The Chairman of the Tribunal appointed the rest of the respondents as staff members of Cuenco and Delgado.

Argument:

Petitioners Respondents
 The SET should be composed of 9 members  The Court is without jurisdiction to try the
comprised of the following: 3 justices of the appointment of SET members, since it is a
Supreme Court, 3 senators from the majority constitutional right granted to Senate.
party and 3 senators from the minority party.  The petition is without cause of action since Tañada
 But since there is only one minority senator the exhausted his right to nominate 2 more senators; he
other two SET members supposed to come from is in estoppel.
the minority were filled in by the NP.  They contend that the present action is not the
proper remedy, but an appeal to public opinion.

Relief asked in Court by petitioners:

A write of preliminary injunction against respondents (cannot exercise duties), to be made permanent after a judgment
to oust respondents is passed.

Issue: Whether or not the issue is a political question.

Ruling: No, the Court ruled that it is not a political question and may be settled by the courts. (See “To
Respondents: Court jurisdiction” for detailed explanation.)

Emphasized response to the arguments:

 To Petitioners: Ruling on the composition of SET

We hold that the Senate may not elect, as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, those Senators who
have not been nominated by the political parties specified in the Constitution; that the party having the
largest number of votes in the Senate may nominate not more than three (3) members thereof to said
Electoral Tribunal; that the party having the second largest number of votes in the Senate has the
exclusive right to nominate the other three (3) Senators who shall sit as members in the Electoral
Tribunal; that neither these three (3) Senators, nor any of them, may be nominated by a person or party
other than the one having the second largest number of votes in the Senate or its representative therein;
that the Committee on Rules for the Senate has no standing to validly make such nomination and that the
nomination of Senators Cuenco and Delgado by Senator Primicias, and the election of said respondents
by the Senate, as members of said Tribunal, are null and void ab initio.

 To Respondents: Court jurisdiction

Such is not the nature of the question for determination in the present case. Here, we are called upon to
decide whether the election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado, by the Senate, as members of the Senate
Electoral Tribunal, upon nomination by Senator Primicias-a member and spokesman of the party having
the largest number of votes in the Senate-on behalf of its Committee on Rules, contravenes the
constitutional mandate that said members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal shall be chosen "upon
nomination .. of the party having the second largest number of votes" in the Senate, and hence, is null
and void. This is not a political question. The Senate is not clothed with "full discretionary authority" in
the choice of members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal. The exercise of its power thereon is subject
to constitutional limitations which are claimed to be mandatory in nature. It is clearly within the
legitimate prove of the judicial department to pass upon the validity the proceedings in
connection therewith. ".. whether an election of public officers has been in accordance with law is for
the judiciary. Moreover, where the legislative department has by statute prescribed election procedure in
a given situation, the judiciary may determine whether a particular election has been in conformity with
such statute, and, particularly, whether such statute has been applied in a way to deny or transgress on
 the constitutional or statutory rights .." (16 C.J.S., 439; emphasis supplied.) It is, therefore, our opinion
that we have, not only jurisdiction, but, also, the duty, to consider and determine the principal issue raised
by the parties herein.

 To Respondents: Waiver and Estoppel

The defenses of waiver and estoppel set up against petitioner Tañada are untenable. Although "an
individual may waive constitutional provisions intended for his benefit", particularly those meant for the
protection of his property, and, sometimes, even those tending "to secure his personal liberty", the power
to waive does not exist when "public policy or public morals" are involved. (11 Am. Jur. 765; I Cooley's
Constitutional Limitations, pp. 368-371). The procedure outlined in the Constitution for the organization, of
the Electoral Tribunals was adopted in response to the demands of the common weal, and it has been
held that where a statute is founded on public policy, those to whom it applies should not be permitted to
waive its provisions" (82 C. J. S., 874). Besides, there can be no waiver without an intent to such effect,
which Senator Tañada did not have. Again, the alleged waiver or exhaustion of his rights does not
justify the exercise thereof by a person or party, other than that to which it is vested exclusively
by the Constitution. The rule estoppel is that "whenever a party has, by his declaration, act or
omissions, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon
such belief, he cannot, in a litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify
it" (Rule 69, sec. 68 [a], Rules of Court). In the case at bar, petitioner Senator Tañada did not lead the
Senate to believe that Senator Primicias could nominate Senators Cuenco and Delgado. On the contrary,
said petitioner repeatedly asserted that his was the exclusive right to make the nomination. He, likewise,
specifically contested said nomination of Senators Cuenco and Delgado. Again, the rule on estoppel
applies to questions of fact, not of law, about the truth of which the other party is ignorant (see
Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3, pp. 490, 495). Such is not the nature of the situation
that confronted Senator Tañada and the other members of the Senate. Lastly, the case of Zandueta vs.
De la Costa (66 Phil., 615), cited by respondents, is not in point. Judge Zandueta assumed office by
virtue of an appointment, the legality of which he later on assailed. In the case at bar, the nomination and
election of Senator Tañada as member of the Senate Electoral Tribunal was separate, distinct and
independent from the nomination and election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado.

Dissenting: Paras, CJ
Labrador, J