6 days ago
5
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
MANILA, Philippines — The Senate has been embroiled in a leadership struggle between the bloc led by Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano and a group of senators now led by Sherwin Gatchalian.
The dispute reached a turning point on June 3 after Francis Escudero joined senators who had previously been in the minority, allowing them to gather 12 senators on the floor after Cayetano's bloc had boycotted sessions since June 1.
Citing the 1949 Supreme Court ruling Avelino v. Cuenco and a 2015 Senate precedent, the group argued that a valid quorum existed. They proceeded to reorganize the chamber's leadership, electing Gatchalian as Senate president pro tempore and reshuffling committee chairmanships.
Cayetano's bloc, however, insists that no quorum existed and that actions taken by the new majority were invalid.
What is a quorum
The legal basis for requiring 13 senators to constitute a quorum in the Philippine Senate is Article VI, Section 16(2) of the 1987 Constitution, which states:
"A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide."
Under normal circumstances, a majority is 13 because the Senate has 24 members.
However, during the June 3 session, the new majority counted only 22 senators, arguing that Sen. Jinggoy Estrada was detained while Sen. Bato dela Rosa was beyond the Senate's reach due to an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court.
If the effective membership is reduced to 22, then a majority would be 12 senators.
RELATED: Quorum explained: Why Senate can't act without enough members on the floor
The 2015 precedent
One precedent they cited was a session held on May 5, 2015, during which only 12 senators were present.
This took place during the 69th session of the Senate in the Second Regular Session of the 16th Congress.
At the time, Estrada, Sen. Bong Revilla and Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile were detained over cases related to the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scandal, while four other senators were abroad.
Former Senate President Franklin Drilon then called for a quorum despite there being only 12 senators present.
Avelino vs Cuenco
What happened. On Feb. 18, 1949, Sen. Lorenzo Tañada reserved his right to speak during the next session to present charges against then-Senate President Jose Avelino.
Tañada and Sen. Prospero Sanidad filed Resolution No. 68, which enumerated these charges — including advocating tolerance of graft and corruption — and ordered an investigation.
Although enough senators were present for a quorum at 10 a.m., Avelino delayed his appearance until 11:35 a.m. and, upon entering, spent time slowly reading the resolution before conferring with his followers.
When the session finally opened shortly before noon, 22 of the 24 senators were present, with Sen. Vicente Sotto in the hospital and Sen. Tomas Confesor in the United States.
Avelino and his allies engaged in dilatory tactics, such as opposing the usual motions to dispense with the roll call and the reading of the minutes, to prevent Tañada from speaking.
Avelino repeatedly ignored Tañada's attempts to gain the floor and even threatened to arrest any senator who spoke without being recognized.
During a subsequent commotion in the gallery, one of Avelino's followers, Sen. Pablo Angeles David, moved for adjournment.
Despite formal opposition and requests for a vote on that motion by Sen. Prospero Sanidad and respondent Mariano Cuenco, Avelino banged the gavel and hurriedly walked out of the hall, followed by nine other senators.
The remaining 12 senators continued the session, with Senate President Pro Tempore Melencio Arranz taking the chair to prevent the paralysis of Senate functions.
The body then designated Cuenco to preside, appointed an acting secretary, and allowed Tañada to deliver his privilege speech, after which Resolution No. 68 was unanimously approved.
Finally, the senators passed Resolution No. 67, which declared the position of Senate President vacant and elected Mariano Cuenco as acting Senate president.
Cuenco took his oath of office immediately, and the following day, he was recognized by the Philippine president.
Avelino later filed a quo warranto petition before the Supreme Court, asking the Court to declare him the rightful Senate president and oust Cuenco.
The case raised the following issues:
- Whether the Supreme Court has the power to intervene in a controversy involving the internal leadership and election of officers in the Senate.
- Whether a valid quorum existed during the session in which only 12 senators were present and elected a new Senate president.
Ruling. In its March 14, 1949 resolution, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld Cuenco's election.
The high court reasoned that Sen. Tomas Confesor was in the United States and beyond the Senate's ability to compel attendance.
Because of this, the court treated the Senate's effective membership as 23 instead of 24.
Twelve senators, therefore, constituted a majority of the body's effective membership and could validly conduct business.
The ruling introduced the concept that senators beyond the chamber's "coercive jurisdiction" may not necessarily be counted in determining a quorum.
Why supporters say the situations are similar
Both events revolve around a dispute over Senate leadership and the validity of a quorum. In each case, the Senate president and his majority bloc walked out of or boycotted sessions to prevent a quorum from being declared.
In Avelino vs Cuenco, Senate President Avelino banged his gavel and walked out with nine other senators, leaving 12 behind.
Similarly, from June 1 to June 3, 2026, Cayetano and his majority bloc boycotted sessions for three days, preventing business from proceeding until Escudero joined the previous minority bloc, bringing the total to 12 senators who could then declare a quorum.
In both scenarios, the remaining senators proceeded to reorganize the Senate's leadership.
After Avelino's walkout, the 12 remaining senators designated Cuenco to preside and subsequently elected him acting Senate president through Resolution No. 67.
In June 2026, the 12 senators who formed the quorum declared committee chairmanships vacant and elected Gatchalian as Senate president pro tempore.
Both cases rely on the same legal principle on quorum calculation. The Supreme Court ruled that with Confesor in the United States and beyond the Senate's coercive jurisdiction, the effective membership was 23 rather than 24.
Therefore, 12 senators constituted a valid majority, or quorum.
The June 3, 2026 majority explicitly cited Avelino vs Cuenco as controlling precedent, arguing that with Dela Rosa wanted by the ICC and in protective custody, and Estrada incarcerated, both are beyond the Senate's coercive jurisdiction, making the effective membership 22 or 23 and 12 senators a valid quorum.
Both situations also resulted in a political crisis, with the ousted Senate president challenging the legitimacy of the new leadership. Avelino filed a quo warranto petition asking the Supreme Court to declare him the rightful Senate president and oust Cuenco.
Similarly, Cayetano has maintained that his position remains legitimate, warning of a political crisis and calling the new leadership move an illegal coup.
Same provision in the Constitution. The Constitution in force during the Avelino case was the 1935 Constitution.
Despite the adoption of the 1987 Constitution, the provision on quorum remained substantially the same:
“A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide.”
Why critics say the situations are different
Opponents of the June 3 move argue that the circumstances are not identical.
The 1949 case occurred in postwar, post-independence Philippines, while the June 2026 dispute is unfolding in a vastly different political environment.
The trigger events also differ substantially. Avelino vs Cuenco was sparked by efforts to investigate allegations of graft and corruption against Avelino, including Resolution No. 68, which enumerated charges and called for an investigation.
The June 2026 crisis stems from disputes over committee chairmanships, particularly the Blue Ribbon Committee's inquiry into flood control projects, as well as questions surrounding Cayetano's leadership.
The number of senators initially present also differs. In February 1949, 22 of 24 senators were present when the session opened, with only Sotto hospitalized and Confesor in the United States.
In June 2026, only 12 senators were present from the start of the decisive session, with Escudero's arrival being the crucial factor that enabled the quorum declaration, while Cayetano and the majority bloc had been boycotting for three days.
The reasons for lawmakers' unavailability also differ. In Avelino vs Cuenco, only one senator was unavailable because he was abroad in the United States. In June 2026, two senators are effectively unavailable: Dela Rosa is evading the ICC warrant, while Estrada is detained, which can both be argued to place them beyond the Senate's coercive jurisdiction.
The resolution status differs significantly. In Avelino vs Cuenco, the Supreme Court issued a definitive ruling on March 14, 1949, dismissing Avelino's petition by a vote of 6-4 and declaring Cuenco legally elected.
Cuenco was recognized by the Philippine president the day after his election. In contrast, the June 2026 situation remains ongoing, with no fresh Supreme Court ruling yet in place.
In the June 2026 Senate, Cayetano's status remains in limbo. According to the new majority bloc's spokesperson, Sen. Erwin Tulfo, 13 votes are still needed to elect a new Senate president.
RELATED: Senate presidency in limbo after 12-senator quorum move
'Coercive force' is vague
In a social media post, Sen. Panfilo Lacson said a quorum was computed based on an effective membership of 22 because Dela Rosa was outside the Senate's "coercive power," citing the Avelino case.
“Hence, we voted to declare all positions vacant, although we could not yet elect a new SP (Senate President) because we lacked the 13 votes required under the Constitution,” Lacson said.
However, for law professor Evecar Cruz-Ferrer, the term "coercive force" as discussed in Avelino is too broad and has not been clearly defined.
In an interview with Philstar.com, Cruz-Ferrer said the definition of "coercive force" should ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court.
'Majority of all the members of the House'
The Avelino case also explained that when the Constitution requires a majority of "each House" to establish a quorum, "the House" does not necessarily mean the entire roster of elected members.
According to the ruling, there is a distinction between a majority of all elected members and a majority of "the House" itself, with the latter potentially requiring fewer members to conduct business.
In Avelino, because one senator was out of the country, an absolute majority of 12 out of the 23 remaining active members was legally sufficient to form a constitutional quorum.
