IBP says June 3 Senate quorum was legal

By Joseph Bernard A. Marzan

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the national organization of lawyers in the country, weighed in on the controversy over the Senate session on Wednesday, June 3, saying the chamber met the legal threshold for a quorum.

In a statement Thursday, June 4, the IBP said the Senate had a quorum despite having only half, or 12 of its 24 members, present on the floor.

The IBP based its opinion on Section 16(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which states that a majority of each house of Congress shall constitute a quorum to do business.

Under the same provision, a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and compel the attendance of absent members in the manner and under the penalties that the chamber may determine.

The IBP also cited the 1949 Supreme Court case Avelino v. Cuenco, which held that a majority of each house of Congress did not necessarily refer to a majority of all members of each house.

The case, decided under the 1935 Constitution, interpreted what constituted a quorum in the Senate, which at the time also had 24 members elected at large.

In that case, despite the absence of Ilonggo Sen. Tomas Confesor, who was overseas, the Supreme Court found that the Senate had a quorum because there were 23 senators who could attend.

The IBP also cited Section 10(2), Article VI of the 1935 Constitution, which was part of the 1940 amendment that restored the Senate and contained a provision similar to the country’s current charter.

“There is a difference between a majority of ‘all the members of the House’ and a majority of “the House”. the latter requiring less number than the first. Therefore an absolute majority_ (12) of all the members of the Senate less one (23), constitutes constitutional majority of the Senate for the purpose of a quorum,” the Avelino case read, as cited in the IBP statement.

The IBP said the Avelino doctrine was applicable, citing the recent detention of Sen. Jinggoy Estrada on plunder charges and the disappearance of Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa after the International Criminal Court confirmed a warrant of arrest against him.

The organization noted that dela Rosa had been missing since May 11 but was still on the Senate premises until May 13, when gunshots broke out on both sides of the GSIS Building.

“This Avelino ruling emphasizes a practical approach: the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that allows the Senate to function, and not be blocked by the absence of Members who cannot realistically be made to attend,” the IBP said in its statement.

“Therefore, these [two] senators are considered as beyond the reach of the Senate and cannot be compelled to attend its sessions. As such, they were excluded from the count of Members used to determine quorum.”

“With their exclusion, the total number of Senators considered available was [22]. Twelve  Senators therefore constituted a majority of those available, and thus a valid quorum was constituted for the Senate to conduct official business,” the IBP added.

The IBP’s position came amid a Senate impasse that followed a leadership dispute involving Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano and a rival bloc that backed Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian as acting Senate president.

While the IBP stated its opinion on whether there was a quorum on June 3, it did not address whether the chamber’s reorganization that day was valid.

Gatchalian was elected Senate president pro tempore, while new committee chairpersons were appointed.

Section 16(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution requires the Senate president to be elected by a majority vote of all members, unlike the quorum provision, which the IBP interpreted as requiring a simple majority of members who can be compelled to attend sessions.