MALAYBALAY CITY (MindaNews / 5 June 2026) – Did Senator Chiz Escudero’s attendance in the Senate session on Wednesday enable the minority to attain a quorum? It may be recalled that the 24-member body was brought to a standstill after the majority led by Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano refused to attend the session after an ally, Senator Jinggoy Estrada, was arrested for the non-bailable charge of plunder.
Estrada’s subsequent detention has left the majority bloc with only 11 members who can join the deliberations and voting, as Senator Ronald dela Rosa went back into hiding after casting his vote in favor of Cayetano as Senate President. This was precisely why Cayetano’s group pushed for remote participation and voting to maintain the upper hand. But the minority sensed the scheme, and walked out to protest the apparent attempt to railroad existing rules, leading to the stalemate.
But Escudero, supposedly a member of the majority bloc, attended the session on Wednesday where Win Gatchalian was elected as Senate President Pro Tempore, giving the ongoing intramural a new, intriguing twist.
As expected, Cayetano, obviously aware that he was losing control of the chamber’s power levers, called the move illegal and asserted that he is still the Senate President.
The Palace, meanwhile, has recognized Gatchalian as Acting Senate President.
This scenario has made legal minds turn to history that happened 77 years ago.
Avelino vs Cuenco
In 1949, the Supreme Court was asked to resolve a situation of a similar nature confronting the Senate in the infant years of the post-War republic.
Twelve senators voted to oust Jose Avelino as Senate President after he adjourned the session and his allies walked out to prevent Senator Lorenzo Tañada from delivering a privilege speech against Avelino. The 12 senators who remained in the chamber voted to declare the Senate President’s position vacant and designated Mariano Cuenco as the new Senate President. At that time, one senator, Tomas Confesor, was out of the country.
Avelino filed a quo warranto petition asking the Supreme Court to declare him the rightful Senate President and oust Cuenco.
The Court kept its hands off from the question of who was the legitimate Senate President, invoking the constitutional principle of separation of powers and the “political nature of the controversy.”
“The Court will not sally into the legitimate domain of the Senate on the plea that our refusal to intercede might lead into a crisis, even a resolution No state of things has been proved that might change the temper of the Filipino people as a peaceful and law-abiding citizens. And we should not allow ourselves to be stampeded into a rash action inconsistent with the calm that should characterized judicial deliberations,” it said. (I guess the word “resolution” is a typo. It’s likely “revolution” based on the preceding word “crisis”.)
The Court, however, ruled on whether there was a quorum at the time Cuenco’s group voted him as Senate President to support his designation, the position “being essentially one that depends exclusively upon the will of the majority of the senators.” Also, a quorum is required for the Senate to transact [its] business.
In its decision dated March 4, 1949 (G.R. No. L-2821), the Supreme Court ruled: When the Constitution declares that a majority of “each House” shall constitute a quorum, “the House: does not mean “all” the members. Even a majority of all the members constitute “the House”. (Missouri Pac. vs. Kansas, 63 Law ed. [U. S.], p. 239). There is a difference between 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 Court also pointed out that Cuenco’s group had tried to compel the attendance of the absent senators, a constitutional requirement, but failed due to the continuing refusal of Avelino’s group to cooperate. What the Court was saying was that the Senate must not be paralyzed owing to the repetitive boycott by one group. The Court upheld public interest over technicality that would have rendered the Senate inutile.
Some may argue that this jurisprudence is already outdated since it was based on the 1935 Constitution. But note that the wording of the relevant provision remains the same in the 1987 Constitution – “A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum…”
The key here could be the use of the article “a” instead of “the”. “A” is an indefinite determiner in contrast to “the” which is a definite article. “The” would have meant reckoning the quorum based on “all” the members of the Senate. Thus, it can only mean that the way the framers of the Constitution phrased the provision anticipated situations that would require flexibility.
In Avelino vs Cuenco, the Court counted out the absent senator, Confesor, in determining whether there was a quorum or not. Note that Confesor, unlike Senators dela Rosa and Jinggoy Estrada, was not even a fugitive or in detention for an alleged crime but was merely on a foreign trip.
If and when the Cayetano bloc opts to bring the subject to the Court, how will the Justices view the absence of dela Rosa and Estrada? Dela Rosa’s whereabouts are unknown, while Estrada is legally barred from attending sessions. Will it consider them beyond the “coercive power” of the Senate to compel attendance, and so must be excluded in determining the quorum or majority?
(MindaViews is the opinion section of MindaNews. H. Marcos C. Mordeno can be reached at boymords@mindanews.com)
