𝗗𝗔𝗡𝗜 𝗣.

𝙼𝚒𝚗𝚍 𝚘𝚟𝚎𝚛 𝚎𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚢𝚝𝚑𝚒𝚗𝚐 🐯✨🌊

[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.

[Karen Davila @iamkarendavila]

Senators were seen crying yesterday as a colleague was being arrested for plunder.

This is in no way an indictment of the accused senator but I would like to remind our lawmakers…

Iyakan n’yo ang ninanakawang Pilipino.
Iyakan n’yo ang binabaha dahil sa nakawan sa flood control.
Iyakan n’yo ang gutom nating mga kababayan.

Get out of your bubble. Please.

[Kiko Pangilinan @kikopangilinan]

Solid Bloc. 🇵🇭

[Torey Canino-Celis @tj_canino]

“...or they are in a hurry because of news reports that two of our colleagues might land in jail this weekend?”

SENATOR TULFO SPITTING FACTS ONLY I LOVE THIS 😭😭😭

[Informed PH @informedph2]

Facebook post ni Dean Mel Sta. Maria:

CAN ANY SENATOR BE ARRESTED INSIDE THE SENATE PREMISES FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY?

YES. The reasons can easily by explained.

FIRST. Is the Senate building being rented? If yes, then the people are paying for the rental. Is the Senate building owned by the government? If yes, then it belongs to the People. There is no law expressly making the premises of the senate a safe haven for fugitives or those charged with the commission of a crime.

SECOND. No senator has any proprietary interest in that building. No senator owns it. It is not a fortress designed to protect erring people from authorities or a foreign embassy where Philippine Law has waived jurisdiction. A criminal or a fugitive from justice can be arrested inside the building.

THIRD. A senator is only immune from arrest while the Senate is in session and if the penalty of the alleged crime is below six (6) years imprisonment. According to Republic Act No. 9851, crime against humanity where death occured is punishable by reclusion perpetua ( 40 years).

FOURTH. Republic Act No. 9851 provides that the Philippines can allow an international tribunal to investigate or try a persons charged of crime against humanity if it is already investigating or trying such persons and, if need be, deliver the said persons to the tribunal. ( Section 17) . This is in accordance with the generally accepted principle of law declaring that crime against humanity is a universal crime. By the way, generally accepted principles of law according to our constitution are adopted by our country as part of the law of the land.

FIFTH. The warrant of arrest of the ICC is valid. The bill of rights of the Constitution provides that no one can be arrested without a warrant of arrest issued by a judge. The word "judge" is not qualified and hence it can refer to a local judge or a foreign judge whose jurisdiction the Philippines has accepted.

SIXTH. Crime against Humanity involves an international element where the Executive Department must be given the greatest respect in its determination and enforcement. Foreign policy, peace and order, apprehension of a fugitive are executive functions. The Legislature should not interfere in the performance of such executive functions as this would violate the separation of powers.

SEVENTH. NBI personnel are within their rights to run after a fugitive from justice or persons charged with a crime. Also, there is a presumption of regularity of government enforcements.

EIGHT. The Senate must NOT coddle and protect a fugitive. That is obstruction of justice. No one is above the law.

NINTH. There is no law expressly providing a so-called " Senate Protective-Custody" as an exemption to the enforcement of a warrant of arrest.

TENTH. Unless stopped by the Supreme Court, the enforcement of a valid arrest must proceed. No one is above the law.

[marv @mvn_dn]

“It seems to this representation that the honorable gentleman is not listening .” is an absolute BAR🔥

[ALTStarMagic 💫 @AltStarMagic]

“Kevs, parang okay na sila. Ready na ako anytime..”

HOME ALONG DA RILES REUNION MOVIE TAPOS GANITO LINYAHAN NI TITA NOVA VILLA??? WAG NAMAN GANYAN HOOOOY 😭😭😭😭 #HomeAlongDaRiles

[PC @PCaster_]

Alam ko na kung bakit biglang uminit sa Pilipinas. Kasi nag-announce pala ang unica jiha ni Satanas na tatakbo sya.

[𝗗𝗔𝗡𝗜 𝗣. @daneepee]

Bakit kasi ang lamig???

[vico blanco @vicotinamide]

ITIGIL NA ANG 2016 TREND NA YAN WAG NIYO AKO INISIN !!!

[Sony Music Philippines @sonymusicph]

Kapangyarihan - @BenAndBenMusic, @SB19Official

#kapangyarihan #benandben #sb19 #sben19

[Pope Leo XIV @Pontifex]

Let us #PrayTogether that the leaders of nations may be free from the temptation to use wealth against humanity, turning it into weapons that destroy peoples and monopolies that demean workers. Whoever serves God becomes free from wealth, but whoever serves wealth remains its slave! Whoever seeks justice transforms wealth into the common good; whoever seeks domination transforms the common good into the prey of their own greed.

[Bilyonaryo News Channel @bncdotph]

‘PTNG*NA NIYO!’

WATCH: Vice Ganda unleashed a fiery message at the Trillion Peso March, blasting corrupt politicians and their enablers.

She declared that the era of silent resilience is over — people are rising up and demanding accountability from those who stole from the nation. | via @hannaaahty, https://t.co/9R0Mcay5im

#CancelCorruptionNow

[ً @leinpop]

mother

[𝓜𝓲𝓵𝓯abby @marianismmm]

Not Marian Rivera dropping her ‘Balota’ line like it’s a campaign slogan before the rally even starts.

SHE REALLY SAID, FVCK YOU ALL!!!

[brent manalo @brentymanalo]

wag mo iflex sakin yang galing sa nakaw

#BahaSaLuneta

[Bitchesa Patolera Basagulera😂 @wanakopake]

Ombudsman should go ahead and dismiss @senatorjoelv. It's a long time coming😏

[arii 🪄 @aldringerous]

THANK YOU SO MUCH NADINE FOR SPEAKING UP!!!! 😭😭🤍🤍🤍

NAIIYAK AKOOOOOOOOOO!!!

[Rowena L. Salvacion @wengsalvacion]

Deym! Our taxes!