07/06/2026
Do the 12 New Majority have A QUORUM and does now constitute the New Senate Majority!? —
​YES! —
The 12 Senators led by Sen Gatchalian does constitute A valid QUORUM :
• ​Under Article VI Section 16(2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, states that a MAJORITY of each House shall constitute a QUORUM to do business! — The Philippine Senate has 24 Senators, meaning • 13 Senators are required to make a QUORUM :
Do the 12 New Majority have A QUORUM and does now constitute the New Senate Majority!? —
​YES! —
The 12 Senators led by Sen Gatchalian does constitute A valid QUORUM :
• ​Under Article VI Section 16(2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, states that a MAJORITY of each House shall constitute a QUORUM to do business! — The Philippine Senate has 24 Senators, meaning • 13 Senators are required to make a QUORUM :
• ​However the Exemption to the General Rule — The Supreme Court established a critical exception in 1949 case of ; Avelino v. Cuenco :
• The Supreme Court ruled that when calculating A QUORUM — Senators who are • Outside the Country or
• Otherwise Beyond the Coercive Jurisdiction of the Senate :
Are SUBTRACTED from the total base number :
​Total Senators — 24!
​Detained / Unavailable — 2!
[ Due to Arrest Warrants and or Detention / Imprisonment ]
​Recognized Base Number — 22!
So the ​Majority of 22 = 12!
​Because only 22 senators were Physically Capable of attending the plenary session, the "WORKING BASE NUMBER" dropped to 22! —
• Therefore, when • Sen Escudero joined the • 11 Minority Senators on the plenary — The resulting 12 Senators officially now formed A Constitutional Quorum! :
Is the Declaration of Vacant Positions valid despite Senate President Cayetano's absence!? :
— YES, it is valid!
• ​Once a QUORUM is established, the Senate has the legal authority to do BUSINESS — Regardless of whether a specific faction chooses to boycott or is absent! :
• Since the New Majority Bloc Achieved the Constitutional QUORUM of 12 — The “Motion to Declare All Elected Positions Vacant” — Including Committee Chairmanships and the Senate Presidency! —
Was Legally Binding! :
• While 12 votes are enough to do BUSINESS and VACATE POSITIONS, Article VI, Section 16(1) of the Philippine Constitution states that the Senate shall elect its President by “A MAJORITY VOTE” of all its respective Members —
• ​Because the Strict Constitutional Requirement is 13 votes [ MAJORITY of ALL 24! ] to officially elect A New Senate President! —
• • The New Majority rightfully designated • Sen Gatchalian as the • Senate President Pro Tempore and the • Acting Senate President! :
• • Not as Senate President but as Senate President Pro Tempore and as “Acting Senate President!” —
• Again that's because the position of Senate President formerly held by Sen Allan Cayetano — WAS DECLARED VACANT — WITH NO OBJECTIONS even from the Cayetano Faction!
• Meaning, wala na ngayong Senate President! — At may bagong Senate President na! — 🤷‍♀️
​What happens if this issue is elevated to the Supreme Court!? :
​The Avelino v Cuenco Precedent :
The Supreme Court would likely apply its own jurisprudence! —
The MATH clearly supports that 12 out of 22 available Senators Constitutes A QUORUM :
— The Supreme Court generally refrains from interfering with the • Internal Rules • Leadership Disputes and • Proceedings of A Co-Equal Branch of Government : unless there is • Grave Abuse of Discretion or a • Direct Constitutional Violation! :
The reorganization of the Senate is traditionally viewed as A purely
• POLITICAL QUESTION —
• ​The fact that Malacañang and the Executive Branch and the House of Representatives have already OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED • Senate President Pro Tempore and • Acting Senate President • Sen Gatchalian as the Valid Acting Senate President! —
This recognition carries immense weight, against the Faction of Sen Cayetano and the New Minority! :
• So most likely —
The Supreme Court will rule on based on it's jurisprudence on the — Avelino v Cuenco Precedent Case — OR DISMISS the same petition outright, as it's purely A Political Question! :
P.S
The Supreme Court have used the Avelino v Cuenco 1949 Precedent on newer cases of quorum disputes, one of the few examples are Pimentel v Senate Committee of the Whole which is A 2010 Case • And on the Baguilat Jr v Alvarez which is A 2017 Case of which both the “Avelino v Cuenco” 1949 Precedent have been cited by the Supreme Court! :
Kaya hindi basihan, kung sasabihin nating iba ang Malolos Constitution sa 1987 Constitution — Because regardless, the Supreme Court have applied the “Avelino v Cuenco” on much newer and recent cases, all based from the 1987 Constitution! :
