ATTY. in 2023✨

Living for the One who died for little lowly me. Hernandaughter 💁‍♀️ #HernanDitItWell

[ATTY. in 2023✨ @helloatty2023]

“He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”
Philippians 1:6

[NBA @NBA]

Karl-Anthony Towns taking it all in.

The former No. 1 pick is now an NBA CHAMPION 🏆

[Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani @NYCMayor]

SPEECHLESS. LFGK.

[Tessy | You're My Favorite Song | 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.

[Kiko Pangilinan @kikopangilinan]

Solid Bloc. 🇵🇭

[NEMO LOVES THE NEW YORK KNICKS. @withthefishiez]

THE NEW YORK KNICKS ARE GOING TO THE NBA FINALS

[ATTY. in 2023✨ @helloatty2023]

@AttyDJPF2026 One more, sib!!!

[Adam | Faithful Messenger @Adam_FaithfulM]

Be aware of this

[PGAG @PGAG_PH]

not efas real quick

[Erin Tañada @erintanada]

It’s suspicious why the Discayas revealed the Congs involved in kickbacks from 2022-2025. Why did they not reveal those involved from 2016-2022… just asking… The Discayas revealed that they were involved in Flood Control Projects since 2016.

[ATTY. in 2023✨ @helloatty2023]

Grabeee ang revelations sa blue ribbon committee hearing!!! Wala nang makatrabaho dito sa office!

[Dear God @TheRich_Gospel]

God's plan. Alwayyyyyyys.

[ATTY. in 2023✨ @helloatty2023]

Was it just familiar or you’re really meant for it?

[Avu🌸 @_maMnyani]

God’s timing 🤍

[ATTY. in 2023✨ @helloatty2023]

Sometimes, I’m surprised I’m still alive.

[ATTY. in 2023✨ @helloatty2023]

God is still sovereign. 🤍

[ATTY. in 2023✨ @helloatty2023]

Lord, yung magaling mag-electric guitar sana 🙏🤭

[ATTY. in 2023✨ @helloatty2023]

@ItsYourKleeeyr_ 🎶 I want to live for You, be glorified forever 🎶🤍

[Natania Marshall ✞ @NataniaMarshall]

I knew God loved me when He covered me in a season I wasn’t even speaking to Him.

[𝓐 @Sincerely_AO]

Don’t forget to pray before you sleep and read Psalms 91 over yourself and family. It says, “He who dwells in the secret place of the Most High Shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, “He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust.”

[ATTY. in 2023✨ @helloatty2023]

@igotthedotbaby HAHAHAHAHA