TMMatt

BPOCoach
Proud Bayaning Puyat
Tapat na Paglilingkod sa Pamahalaan

[Khushi Agarwal @Aicoder786]

INSTEAD OF WATCHING NETFLIX TONIGHT.

Spend 1 hour with this.

Claude AI FULL COURSE that teaches you how to BUILD and AUTOMATE anything.

The people who watch this tonight will wake up tomorrow with a new skill.

Watch it and Bookmark it now.

[Jesus Falcis 🇵🇭 @jesusfalcis]

Statement

I accept the wisdom of the Supreme Court to suspend me for one year. All lawyers are under the disciplinary power of the Court and I am no exception.

Back in 2018 to 2019, I was fighting for the life and liberty of my brother. And my family’s safety and reputation.

I felt helpless and powerless except for my small voice on social media. We were nobodies and I was screaming against the void.

If being suspended is the price I have to pay for defending my family, then it is a price I will pay in any lifetime.

I recognize that words, contained in a tweet, have power and my choice of words should have consequences. All lawyers should be held accountable for their words and actions.

That is why I prostrate myself to the Supreme Court for disciplining me and in the same vein, I beg the Honorable Court to resolve the pending disbarment cases of former President Rodrigo Duterte and Vice President Sara Duterte, to show that indeed, no one is above the law.

And to our dear Senator-Judges, if a lawyer like me can be suspended for cursing, then a Vice President like Sara Duterte should likewise be answerable not just for cursing but for threatening the life of the President and the First Lady.

Accountability should apply to all, big or small.

#Accountability

[TMMatt @BPOvisorJonas]

@PLDTHome @PLDT_Cares @iamMVP wala n nmn ako net ano plano nio?

[Elsa Ai @ElsaSofia__AI]

STOP starting your emails with:

“I hope you’re doing well.”

It’s correct. It’s polite. And it’s also one of the most forgettable openings there is.

If you want someone to reply, don’t start like everyone else.

Start with intention.

Here are 10 alternatives: 👇

[Decoy @22three7eleven]

No one wants to open the Pandora's box that is the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC).

Not the media,
Not the Congressman and Senators,
Not the NBI, DOJ and the Ombudsman.

Not even Malacañang.

[Ꮆ Ꭵ Ꮛ @gesperas]

Ipapaalala ko lang po ang sinabi ni Mayor Vico Sotto:

“Hindi lang sila basta naglalaglagan, gusto nila magulo ang kwento. Gusto nila lituhin tayo. Gusto nila na di na natin malalaman ang totoo.”

"These are people who are really capable of lying without batting an eyelash."
https://t.co/w2hoo9sV3L

[ABS-CBN News @ABSCBNNews]

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines says the Senate session last June 3, 2026, when a quorum of 12 was constituted, is lawful and valid.

[Quito 🌸📡|BINI Signals World Tour 2026 📡 @QuitoNitura]

I've already seen some legal analyses saying that Avelino v. Cuenco might be inapplicable to what happened in the Senate today, thus arguing that the reorganization was invalid. Some are saying that the mention on the basis for quorum in that case was mere obiter dictum. Some even say that that 1949 case could have been superseded by the 1987 Constitution already.

In my view, Avelino v. Cuenco is applicable.

What is clear in the case is that the Supreme Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to interfere in the manner by which the Senate selects its officers. This is a long settled principle in Constitutional Law. In that case, Senator Cuenco was designated as acting Senate President by the remaining senators. He was then recognized as such by then President Quirino. (The same is the case today.) The refusal by the Supreme Court to interfere is an example of the political question doctrine.

The 1987 Constitution, particularly Article VIII, Section 1, limited the applicability of the political question doctrine by expanding the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, if any branch or instrumentality of government acts with grave abuse of discretion. In recent years, there has been a development towards the acceptability of looking into the wisdom of a particular action of government by the SC to see if there was grave abuse of discretion. (This was evident in the interpellation of Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier yesterday in the oral arguments on the Unprogrammed Appropriations Cases.)

By citing Avelino v. Cuenca, and the 5 May 2015 Senate precedent, SP Pro Tempore and acting Senate President @WinGatchalian74 demonstrated that there was wisdom and basis for the Senate's action of electing him and choosing other officers of the Senate. There was no grave abuse of discretion, so the SC will most likely not interfere with the Senate reorganization. Notably, Art. VI, Section 16(1), last sentence, allows the Senate to choose its own officials (with the exception of the Senate President) "as it may deem necessary."

THEREFORE,
1. The declaration that all position in the Senate, including SP, was vacant is valid.
2. The election of Win Gatchalian as SP Pro Tempore, including the election of the other officers of the Senate, is allowed under the Senate Rules, the 1987 Constitution, and Avelino v. Cuenco
3. The Supreme Court will most likely not interfere with the Senate reorganization.

[Barry Gutierrez @barrygutierrez3]

The 1949 case of Avelino v Cuenco gives the new 12-member Senate majority legal basis for their actions today.

If Cayetano's group disagrees, they can bring the matter before the SC.

It will be interesting to see if the SC considers it as a political question or not.

[Jesus Falcis 🇵🇭 @jesusfalcis]

⚠️ In the case of Sen. Trillanes vs. Pimentel (2008), the SC said all prisoners even if elected can’t hold office.

Thus, detained Senators are not part of counting for quorum.

Jinggoy being in jail means the quorum is not 13 out of 24. It’s 12 out of 23. 👊

Iyak mga DDS! 😂

[Win Gatchalian @WinGatchalian74]

It is time for the Senate to move forward and get back to work for the Filipino people.

[Maritessy | WilCa Delulu | All Things Reality TV @CollabS12PBB]

EXPLANATION
Why Avelino vs Cuenco 1949 is enough for a quorum of 12

Normally, the Senate has 24 senators, so quorum is 13.

Senate PH Rule II says that for Senate officers: they are elected by “majority vote of all its members.”

So if all 24 are counted, 12 is not enough.

But the anti-Cayetano camp’s argument comes from Avelino v. Cuenco, 1949.

In that case, the Supreme Court accepted the idea that because one senator was outside the country and could not participate, the Senate could be treated as having only 23 participating members. That made 12 a majority.

The Supreme Court said that “an absolute majority (12)” of the Senate “less one (23)” could be quorum, and Justice Feria explained that the count may be based on “actual members or incumbents” who are not incapacitated or outside the Senate’s jurisdiction.

Applied today: if Jinggoy Estrada is unable to participate because he is arrested, they can argue the working Senate is 23, not 24.

So 12 becomes quorum under Avelino logic.

Now add the Cayetano issue.

A Senate President is not the owner of the Senate.

The Senate Rules say the Senate normally meets at 3 PM on weekdays, unless the Senate decides otherwise.

If a session is postponed, the Senate President must consult the Majority and Minority Leaders. And the Senate President cannot just suspend or adjourn a session by himself without a motion or resolution approved by senators present, except in the specific postponement situation.

So if Cayetano refuses to preside or tries to stop the chamber from functioning, the anti-Cayetano camp can say - the chair cannot kill the chamber.

That is also consistent with Avelino v. Cuenco, 1949.

In that case, the Senate President abandoned the chair and did not attend.

Worse, Cayetano not only was absent, he did not designate a Presiding Officer either - the Senate is not functioning.

The anti-Cayetano senators continued, and the case records say the deliberate abandonment made it necessary for the remaining members to continue “in order NOT TO PARALYZE the functions of the Senate.”

So the anti-Cayetano camp’s legal theory is basically this:

(1) The Senate is bigger than Former SP Cayetano.

(2) If he refuses to preside, and enough senators are present, the Senate can still function.

(3) If Jinggoy cannot participate, Avelino gives them an argument that 12 is quorum.

(4) Once quorum exists, the Senate can act on its internal organization, including committees per the Senate Rules.

They are on stronger ground when reorganizing committees, because committees are part of Senate internal organization.

Rule X says permanent committees are formed by the Senate after organization, including the Committee on Rules (take notice, yan ang unang call to motion ni Sotto).

So what did Cayetano did wrong?
Essentially by refusing to attend the Senate or any of the presiding officers (ie: Former Pro Tempore Legarda, and Former Majority Leaders), the situation became more and more similar to Avelino v. Cuenco, 1949.

The former Majority could even argue that Avelino v. Cuenco, 1949 is a "special circumstance" . However, the similarities between then and now became more apparent with the former Majority leaders absence and made the arguments of the anti-Cayetano camp stronger.

With this, the new Majority got their quorum and they rearranged leadership.

So why only the leaderships and not the actual Senate Presidency?

So the pro-Cayetano camp can ask: "If you truly have quorum, and the majority of all members, why not also elect a Senate President?"

Short answer: Because of the Constitution.

The Constitution makes electing a new Senate President more sensitive because it specifically requires a “majority vote of all its respective Members” for that office.

The Constitution then separately says each House may choose “such other officers as it may deem necessary.”

For Senate President:
The Constitution itself sets the rule. The Senate President must be elected by “a majority vote of all its respective Members.”

For President Pro Tempore and other officers:
The Constitution does not give a specific voting threshold. It only says each House may choose “such other officers as it may deem necessary.” (Sec. 16)

It also says each House may determine its own rules.

That is where Senate Rule II comes in:
the Senate used its rule-making power to say its officers, including the President Pro Tempore, Secretary, and Sergeant-at-Arms, are elected by majority vote of all members.

LOGICAL DIFFERENCE:
So the Constitution does not dictate the definition of "all members" for other Senate officers - only for the Senate President.

Thus, the dictation and definition of "all members" lies on Senate Rules per the Constitution Sec. 16, "...as they deem necessary..."

But with Avelino v. Cuenco 1949 coming in...

The Senate PH has already defined "majority of all members" to be "active members of the Senate - that could participate"

In the ruling,
Justice Feria said the count may be based on the Senate’s “actual members or incumbents,” excluding those unable to discharge their duties because of death, incapacity, absence from jurisdiction, or other causes making attendance impossible (ie: arrest).

Feria treated the Senate as having 23 actual members, so 12 became a quorum and majority.

[Jesus Falcis 🇵🇭 @jesusfalcis]

Loren Legarda is lying through her teeth and gaslighting everyone.

The New Majority-12 did NOT elect a Senate President.

They declared all positions vacant with a quorum of 12 legally backed up by the Senate Rules, the Constitution, SC jurisprudence, and Senate practice.

Why should Legarda know this?

It’s because in May 2015 when three (3) of their fellow Senators were arrested for plunder and she was abroad on an official trip, they used a quorum of 12 out of 17 available Senators to conduct business.

Guess who was one of the Senators in 2015?

Yep, Loren Legarda. Along with Alan Peter Cayetano and Pia Cayetano. Resibo below. 👇

And not one of them objected or claimed the session was unconstitutional. Not one of them filed a case before the Supreme Court.

You are now in estoppel, Senator Loren.

So no, we won’t be gaslighted. 👊

#NoToGaslighting

[Win Gatchalian @WinGatchalian74]

Sayang ang ipinapasahod ng taong-bayan kung hindi nagagamit ang oras ng Senado para sa trabaho.

Humigit-kumulang ₱25 milyon ang ginagastos kada araw sa operasyon ng Senado para sa kuryente, utilities, pasahod, at iba pang pangangailangan.

Kapag walang sesyon, walang batas o resolusyong maipapasa. Maaantala rin ang kumpirmasyon ng ating military personnel.

[Karen Davila @iamkarendavila]

Absolute disrespect for the Filipino people. What entitlement.

Mag-boycott tayo.
Huwag mag trabaho.
Hayaan natin ang mga nakabinbing panukala.

Mga senador, binabayaran kayo ng taumbayan. Pambabastos ito sa Pilipino.

[Jesus Falcis 🇵🇭 @jesusfalcis]

Alan Peter Cayetano Resign!

Make it trend.
Make it real.
Make it happen.

🙏

#AlanPeterCayetanoResign

[TMMatt @BPOvisorJonas]

Taft Station ang haba ng pila sa ticket counter 2 lng ung tao nio.. talaga ba? lalaki ng sweldo nio wala kayong ginagawa..bastos pa security nio !!! @ABSCBNNews
@DOTrPH

[TMMatt @BPOvisorJonas]

@gmanews @SenImeeMarcos kahirapan ba kami ng mga PILIPINO? Ibalik nio ninakaw ng pamilya nio!! @ANCALERTS @gmanews

[Kiko Pangilinan @kikopangilinan]

JOINT STATEMENT ON THE SENATE MINORITY WALKOUT

We strongly condemn what appears to be an attempt to rush a major change in the Senate Rules, especially when several members of the minority still wanted to speak and raise serious questions on the floor.

Bakit kailangang madaliin? Bakit kailangang pigilan ang mga gustong magsalita? Bakit kailangang i-divide ang house kung marami pang senador ang nagtatanong tungkol sa proseso?

Minamadali ba ang rule change na ito dahil gusto nilang maka boto si Senator Bato? At ngayong may mga ulat na may mga majority senators na maaaring arestuhin?

We walked out because what happened on the floor looked less like orderly deliberation. The proposed rule change affects how senators may attend sessions, participate in proceedings and exercise their mandate through remote means, and such a measure should be opened to healthy public debate instead of being rushed by the tyranny of the majority.

We have always welcomed healthy discussions on the floor, but this should mean allowing all members to be heard, not forcing the chamber to move at the speed preferred by the majority.

At the time the motion was taken up, there was no duly constituted Committee on Rules and there was not even an elected Majority Leader who could properly guide a rules amendment through the regular process.

How could there have been any action or discussion before the Committee on Rules when no Committee on Rules has been organized to date?

With due respect, the answer that no Senate rule had been violated does not settle the matter, because the rules cannot be treated as a matter of convenience when the very process for amending them is under serious question.

The timing raises a question that the public deserves to hear debated openly. Kaya pinili naming tumayo at iwan ang majority sa plenary. Kaya kami nagdesisyon to question the quorum and call for adjournment.

If the proposal is truly defensible, then let it pass through the proper route.

We owe it to the people who voted for us to do our mandate. This is why we want more time to discuss this further.

[Gerry Cacanindin @GerryCacanindin]

Kay Imee, BABABA talaga integridad ng Senado.