Destructive Senate gridlock

Last of two parts

Constitution crystal clear on required quorum

UNTIL and unless the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the action taken by the Gatchalian group or until and unless the senators disrobe themselves of partisan loyalties and discard animosities so evident with each other, and perform instead their duties with only the country’s interest as their priority, and remain fealty to their oath of office, this impasse and legislative internecine will continue to the sufferance of country and people.

The bone of contention of this Senate hullabaloo is simple enough, which is: What constitutes a quorum in electing the officers of the Senate.

It is quite amusing to hear and read opinions expressed by various legal minds on what the Constitution says about what constitutes a quorum with respect to electing the officers of the Senate. They are reading the same constitutional provisions and the rules of the Senate, and even that of the oft-quoted citation of the aforementioned case of Avelino v. Cuenco in support of their legal opinions, yet they come out with different results.

Those supporting the action taken by the Gatchalian group point to the Supreme Court ruling in the Avelino case, which allegedly reduced the constitutionally required number of 13 senators to constitute a quorum, to only 12 senators. They argue that the Supreme Court ruled that since in the Avelino case, the factual situation was that one senator was abroad at the time of the voting of the Senate officers and therefore not under the coercive jurisdiction of the court, then the basis for determining the quorum would be the 23 senators who are able to vote; hence, the majority of 23 senators to constitute a quorum is only 12 senators.

The proffered argumentation is flawed, and the invocation of the Avelino v. Cuenco case is wrong.

The language of the Constitution is simple, unequivocal and crystal clear that leaves no room for interpretation beyond the meaning of the ordinary words as used by the Constitution.

The pertinent provision of Section 16, Article VI of the Constitution reads:

“SECTION 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives Speaker, by a majority vote of all of its respective members.”

The phrase “by a majority vote of all its ... members” means exactly what it clearly implies.

There are 24 members of the Philippine Senate; hence, the simple majority to constitute a quorum is 12 senators plus one, or 13 senators.

The fact that Senator Bato has made himself scarce and Sen. Jinggoy Estrada is incarcerated does not remove them from the equation in getting the majority number required for a quorum. They remain senators and part of the 24 senators referred to by the Constitution. The circumstance that they may not be able to attend the Senate sessions is not a justification to exclude them in determining the quorum required in electing the Senate officers.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the majority of all the members would be reduced if any senator is absent in the session for whatever reason. Such reduction is constitutionally infirm as it violates the clear language as well as the spirit of the Constitution.

Any inclusion of an extraneous circumstance which is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution is an unsanctioned and unlawful amendment thereto.

The citation of the Avelino case in support of the theory that 12 senators constitute a quorum is grossly erroneous and laced with political partisan agenda.

The voting on the question of quorum was evenly divided. Four justices said that 12 senators are constitutionally permissible if a senator is outside of the country and beyond the reach of the Senate to compel attendance, while the other four justices ruled that 13 senators are required to constitute a quorum as mandated by the Constitution. There is therefore no definitive ruling on that legal issue hence inappropriate to apply it in the present Senate deadlock.

Quoted hereunder is a portion of the decision in the Avelino v. Cuenco case, penned by the late chief justice Manuel Vicente Moran, which should be illuminating:

“The situation now in this Court is this — there are four members who believe there was no quorum in respondent’s election as against four other members who believe that there was such quorum. Two members declined to render their opinion on the matter because of their refusal to assume jurisdiction. And, one member is absent from the Philippines. Thus, the question of whether or not the respondent has been legally elected, is to say the least, doubtful in this Court under the present conditions. This doubt, which taints the validity of all the laws, resolutions and other measures that the Cuenco group has passed and may pass in the future, can easily be dispelled by them by convening a session wherein thirteen senators are present and by reiterating therein all that has been previously done by them. This is a suggestion coming from a humble citizen who is watching with a happy heart the movements of this gallant group of prominent leaders campaigning for a clean and honest government in this dear country of ours.”

The Constitution is explicit on what constitutes a quorum. So is the rules of the Senate, to wit:

“Rule II Election of Officers

“SEC. 2. The officers of the Senate shall be elected by the majority vote of all its members.”

Just like the simple and clear language used in the Constitution in the matter of what is the required number of senators necessary to elect the Senate officers, so is the Senate rule simple and clear that requires no interpretation nor elaboration.

As to the recent dismissal of the Supreme Court of a petition for certiorari filed by a public school teacher seeking its intervention to declare the election of Senator Gatchalian as acting Senate president and Senate president pro tempore by the 12 senators as valid and in accordance with the Constitution, does not upheld the position of Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano that he remains the Senate president. That remains a contentious and unresolved legal issue.

The dismissal of the petition only means that the Supreme Court refused to assume jurisdiction because the petitioner does not have a legal standing to file it, meaning he is not the proper party to institute the action, as he has not shown that he has suffered or at the risk of suffering any direct personal injury from the political actions he challenged.

In order to resolve with finality the legality of the election of Senator Gatchalian as head of the Senate by a majority of 12 senators, Senator Cayetano must file a petition for quo warranto against Senator Gatchalian, as he appears to have taken over as Senate president and presided over the Senate session and issued directives as such to the Senate employees and were followed by them. His election has also been recognized by the House of Representatives and the President of the Philippines, as well as other branches of the government. Senator Cayetano would be the proper party to institute the action because his position as Senate president has been usurped, being effectively ousted by Senator Gatchalian’s group.

Failure to file the aforesaid appropriate petition with the Supreme Court would only prolong the Senate gridlock with the danger of having two senates and two impeachment courts.

It behooves the senators to resolve the Senate imbroglio among themselves or institute the proper judicial action for the Supreme Court to resolve the destructive Senate deadlock.