THE so-called Senateflix ended last week with Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano conceding and the new Senate majority electing Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian as the new Senate president. The exciting attendance of Sen. Joel Villanueva in that special session called by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. rendered Gatchalian’s bloc the chamber’s new — or, shall we say, constitutional — majority with 13 members.
That suspenseful development on June 17 was preceded by Cayetano and nine other senators filing a petition to the Supreme Court on June 15. They were praying for a status quo ante order on the conditions of June 3, and to declare null and void all the actions made that day due to the absence of a quorum, as required by the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
But with 13 votes out of the 24-seat Senate, the required quorum was met, and the constitutionality of Gatchalian’s ascent to the Senate presidency has been resolved, mooting the petition of Cayetano et al. But he has not withdrawn his petition, and while the Court has not acted on it, it was not dismissed either on the ground of mootness.
Not all is well that ends well: Not for this one yet
Before June 17, Gatchalian was elected Senate president pro tempore and acting Senate president with only 12 senators present on the chamber’s floor. He and his supporters claimed that 12 senators constitute a quorum. In invoking jurisprudence laid down in the landmark 1949 case of Avelino vs. Cuenco, Gatchalian argued that the base number should only be 22, instead of 24, as Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa is in hiding and Sen. Jinggoy Estrada is under detention.
Gatchalian presided in the session that filled up the positions of secretary and sergeant-at-arms. They believe they have complied with Rule II, Sec. 2 of Senate rules mandating that such officers “shall be elected by a majority vote of all its members.” They argue that they satisfied the legislative intent of getting the votes of the “majority,” which is only 12 out of 22 senators, because to include dela Rosa and Estrada and make 24 the base number is to defeat the spirit of the law, since both senators are unable or cannot be compelled to perform their legislative functions.
The Cayetano bloc disagreed, hence the petition.
Cayetano and his fellow petitioners pray for the Court to declare that by such acts made on June 3, when there was no quorum, and with only 12 senators voting that did not meet the requisite majority vote, the Gatchalian bloc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. And while the June 17 election of Gatchalian as Senate president by 13 senators was a supervening event, there remains an issue of paramount public interest that the Court must rule: what number constitutes “majority vote of all members” of the Senate or the House of Representatives. As the sole interpreter of the Constitution, it behooves the Court to make the determination.
Aside from issues of transcendental importance, the Court ruled even in mooted cases where there are unresolved matters that potentially violated the Constitution; or issues the resolution of which serves to educate judges, lawyers and the public; or where the filer voluntarily withdraws his petition but could easily refile it.
Capable of repetition; evading review
Finally, the Court settles issues that are capable of repetition, yet evading review. By resolving the current issues of quorum and the number of votes to constitute the “majority votes of all members” of the Senate (and the House), the Court will prevent the re-occurrence of these vital issues in the future.
Aside from electing the president and other Senate officers, the 1987 Constitution laid down various instances where the members of the Senate and the House are required to vote.
As it stands, a minimum of two-thirds vote of all members of the Senate, or 16 senators (based on a 24-member chamber), is required to convict an impeached official and to ratify treaties or international agreements. The same number is needed to grant amnesty, to override a presidential veto, and to expel or suspend a member of the Senate.
The vote of a simple majority of the members of the Senate and the House (or 50 percent, plus one), voting either jointly or separately, is needed to declare a state of war, to revoke or extend the president’s declaration of martial law, or to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
While the current issues beset the Senate more than the House — especially that the impeachment court is set to begin the trial on July 6 — it becomes imperative for the Court to issue its ruling to end the conundrum. Without the determination, we will be facing serious constitutional issues, especially because the verdict of the impeachment court is beyond the ambit of the Court to nullify, review, revise, or modify.
We implore the justices, and the Supreme Court as the “last bastion of democracy” and the “final stronghold of justice,” being the court of last resort, to decide on this issue of paramount public interest. Help us save the nation from the hands of unscrupulous politicians who cite the law and the Constitution to their advantage and advance their own selfish interests rather than the people they have sworn to serve.
We rebuke the current members of the Senate and the House for their distasteful demeanor and the quality of the laws they pass. Yet, they mirror our choices. They are mere reflections of how we value our future and that of our children by the manner we exercise our sacred right to vote.
We will have our chance for retribution in the coming 2028 elections. We should have learned our painful lessons. And those who betrayed our trust and failed our minimum expectations should never again be allowed to hold elected positions.
atty.edarevalo@gmail.com
