🆔CathyAnne♌_131🎡

Welcome to Wonderland 🎡

•Hanbin First, Hanbin Second,
For Hanbin ALWAYS. 🎡

[🆔CathyAnne♌_131🎡 @iamqueencath3n]

We share conversations just like destined people..

Tell me again tonight "I love you"..

My old lullaby.

Kim Hanbin really pens the most beautiful lyrics out here, I'm gonna go crazy being in love with this man.😭💞

#비아이 #HANBIN @shxx131bi131

https://t.co/pH2SQVBx9v

[Kiko Pangilinan @kikopangilinan]

Kasama ang Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC), ating bibigyang-linaw ang mga tanong sa implementasyon ng Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, pananagutan ng mga kabataang gumawa ng krimen, at suporta na aasahan ng mga biktima at kanilang pamilya sa pamahalaan.

PANOORIN LIVE: https://t.co/yB1QQBLc0z

[🆔CathyAnne♌_131🎡 @iamqueencath3n]

@AJEnglish Not bullying based on phone conversation recovered.

[Belle Enriquez @iamsouperwoman]

Senator Pia Cayetano seems less interested in clarifying the bill and more interested in undermining Senator Risa Hontiveros. The problem is that the very points she keeps insisting are “not written” are actually in the bill and have already been explained repeatedly during the sponsorship and interpellation.

A healthy debate is supposed to illuminate issues, not create confusion where none exists. Instead of listening to the answers being given, Pia repeatedly interrupts, talks over the sponsor, and turns what should be a constructive exchange into an unnecessary spectacle.

Parliamentary courtesy exists for a reason. It allows senators to disagree without sacrificing respect and decorum. Senator Risa maintained her composure throughout the discussion, but it was difficult not to notice the constant interruptions and confrontational tone coming from the other side.

Debate is welcome. Disagreement is welcome. But basic respect should never be optional.

Frankly, the lack of parliamentary courtesy was glaring. It came across as rude, disrespectful, and completely unnecessary.

[🆔CathyAnne♌_131🎡 @iamqueencath3n]

Ang sus ng actions Ng minority, idagdag pa Yun agitated attitude ni Pia, something's going on with APC and looks like hawak nya sa leeg buong minority kahit obvious na it's not in their best interest to put him as the minority leader.

The guy needs serious medical intervention.

[ABS-CBN News @ABSCBNNews]

Senator Loren Legarda announces that Senator Alan Peter Cayetano will serve as minority leader, but clarified this is "without prejudice" to their bloc's pending Supreme Court petition to declare null and void the June 3 Senate session, which saw the removal of Cayetano as Senate president.

[🆔CathyAnne♌_131🎡 @iamqueencath3n]

Nabigyan na nga ng fandom name. 😭🤣

[j a n 🥀 @loudestdork]

sen risa commenting on "winri"

[Suppressed Voices @supressedvoic]

She's right.

[radar PH @radarph_media]

Many assume hazing only happens in fraternity rituals, but the Amended Anti-Hazing Act of 2018 (RA 11053) expands this definition to all organizations, explicitly including varsity sports teams.

Crucially, the law penalizes acts required not just for recruitment but for continuing membership or team placement. It bans anything that humiliates, degrades, or risks physical or psychological injury. 

When intense athletic conditioning or grueling "character-building" camps cross into severe coercion, coaches enter a dangerous legal minefield.

THE ‘OLD SCHOOL’ CULTURE AND THE MYTH OF CONSENT

Collegiate sports historically have bought into the grueling bootcamps, believing that individual egos have to be broken through extreme fatigue to build cohesive teams. Many argue that elite athletes voluntarily agree to these regimens in order to win starting slots.

But RA 11053 has clearly removed consent as a legal defense. The law recognizes the extreme imbalance of power between powerful head coaches and student-athletes, stating that players cannot legally consent when scholarships and careers are leveraged by the team hierarchy. Mental grit no longer protects reckless conditioning.

INSTITUTIONAL LIABILITY AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE

Here is where corporate governance and vicarious liability enter the picture. Universities are strictly liable for damages caused by employees under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, so administrators can no longer blame rogue coaches or private off-campus trips. Moreover, RA 11053 imposes severe penalties on school officials who do not actively prevent hazardous organizational practices.

Even if investigations reveal no criminal intent in hazing, the institutional consequences can be devastating. A varsity team-building activity is a corporate function of a university’s multi-million peso athletic brand. 

Allowing a coaching staff to send students into open-ocean environments without certified water-safety personnel, lifeguards, or active weather monitoring shifts the legal conversation from an unavoidable accident to gross corporate and criminal negligence.

Philippine athletics must move beyond a Jurassic culture of physical danger. Coaches are sports experts, not rescue specialists. If universities expose student-athletes to unimaginable danger during team-building camps, they fail to fulfill their fundamental duty of care. Trophies do not matter when athletes are dead.

(By Walter C. Villa)

#radarPH

[🆔CathyAnne♌_131🎡 @iamqueencath3n]

rip currents don't play games.

[marv @mvn_dn]

“This institution owes you its dignity because you keep the Senators on their toes.”
- Sen Raffy Tulfo addresses the Senate press

[The Spectator Index @spectatorindex]

BREAKING: 8.2 magnitude quake in the Philippines, with a tsunami threat issued.

[Breaking911 @Breaking911]

BREAKING: Powerful 8.7 Earthquake Reported Off Mindanao, Philippines

[Edwin Lacierda @dawende]

SENATOR ALAN CAYETANO: CUT AND CUT CLEANLY

I agree with the position of Senator Frank Drilon that there is a presumption of regularity in the declaration of all Senate positions vacant, including that of former Senate President Alan Cayetano.

Alan knows this.

That is why he has not gone to the Supreme Court to challenge his removal.

Because at the heart of this latest Senate coup lies a reality that extends beyond questions of quorum, procedure, or parliamentary technicalities. The real issue is who has the numbers to control the Senate.

And even assuming for the sake of argument that the Supreme Court were to rule in Alan’s favor, what then?

On the first day of session, there would simply be another motion declaring all positions vacant. This time, there would be 13 votes.

The reality is that parliamentary power ultimately rests not on titles but on numbers.

Indeed, the issue may be resolved even sooner if the President calls a special session of Congress. If Alan has only ten votes and if reports are accurate that he may lose yet another supporter, on what basis can he continue to claim the Senate Presidency?

The larger lesson for Senator Alan Cayetano and for the country is this:

In a democracy, institutions are bigger than the ambitions of any one leader.

No office belongs to any individual. Every position is held only so long as one retains the confidence of those empowered to confer it.

Legitimacy does not come from clinging to office. It comes from retaining the confidence of those empowered to choose their leaders.

This is why democratic institutions endure. Leaders come and go but institutions must continue to function regardless of the fortunes of any one person.

When the numbers are gone, the title eventually follows.

The wise course now is not to prolong the contest but to accept the verdict of the numbers.

Therefore, I beseech you, Senator Alan Cayetano. Let the institution move forward. Cut and cut cleanly.

[🆔CathyAnne♌_131🎡 @iamqueencath3n]

Panagutan nyo kilig namin. 🤣

[🌶 ate_Sai 📦💛 @SDeguzman96867]

Up ko lang tong podcast ni Sir Kiko. Hahahahaha

WINRI SA MANILA TIMES
#WinRi #WinRiOfficial

[Integrated Bar of the Philippines @IntegratedBarPH]

[Reposted with Corrections]

Official Statement On What Constitutes A Legitimate Quorum For The Senate To Conduct Official Business

[🆔CathyAnne♌_131🎡 @iamqueencath3n]

Yung pati community notes na nag correct na sayo. 🤣

[Loren Legarda @loren_legarda]

The Constitution is clear and does not leave room for interpretation.

The Senate is composed of 24 Senators, and a majority of 13 constitutes a quorum to do business.

13 votes to constitute a quorum.

13 votes to elect officers.

A void election cannot create valid authority.

[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.

[🆔CathyAnne♌_131🎡 @iamqueencath3n]

The expression of the people at the back tells the answer.

Sya na lang di makatanggap sa katotohaman. 😅🤣

[Inquirer @inquirerdotnet]

'SINO ANG SUSUNDIN NIYO?'

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano calls on Senate employees to clarify which leadership they will follow following the recent Senate leadership changes, noting that his successor has not yet been elected.

READ RELATED STORY: https://t.co/z6e0c2x8ru

[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.

[Jesus Falcis 🇵🇭 @jesusfalcis]

🚨 OMG!

Tito Sotto rebutted the maleta allegations not only by saying he was not a Senator from 2022-2025.

Ang pinaka proof na false ang allegations ay yung EA or executive assistant nya na si Mark na sinabing tumanggap ng maleta for him died in 2015!

🙀

[🆔CathyAnne♌_131🎡 @iamqueencath3n]

Wala talaga silang gc.
🤣🤣

Sen. Loren, better ask for the head of Cayetano after this. 🤣

[Polly Liwanag @palubogpalitaw]

WOW BAYANI. Pustahan may masisigawan na namang staff si Lorna Regina Legarda dahil malamang hindi siya nabrief na kasama siya sa tinuturong senador ng 18 ex-marines!