Oliva, Rama refute IBP, say 12-senator quorum invalid

Local

TWO Cebu-based lawyers have publicly rejected the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors’ position validating the controversial June 3 Senate session.

Cebu City Councilor Mikel Rama and ex-Mandaue City Treasurer Regal Oliva argued that the constitutional requirement for a quorum in the 24-member chamber remains 13 senators.

This follows the Senate leadership reorganization, where 12 senators declared a quorum, removed key officers, and installed Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian as Senate president pro tempore.

The IBP Board of Governors had earlier maintained that the June 3 session was “lawful” and “valid,” citing the Supreme Court’s 1949 ruling in Avelino v. Cuenco, which it said allows senators who are beyond the Senate’s power to compel attendance to be excluded from quorum computations.

But both Rama and Oliva disputed that interpretation.

In a statement addressed to fellow members of the IBP Cebu City Chapter, Rama argued that reducing the Senate’s working membership from 24 to 22 effectively disenfranchises voters whose elected representatives are absent or unable to attend.

“A Senate seat and the legislative vote it carries does not belong to the sitting senator. It belongs to the electorate,” Rama said.

He contended that sovereignty resides in the people and that public office is a public trust under the Constitution.

“Artificially shrinking the Senate’s working base to manufacture a 12-vote majority does not only sideline two politicians, but it also disenfranchises millions of voters,” he said.

Rama further warned that institutional stability depends on respecting the full electoral mandate rather than relying on what he described as “procedural shortcuts” to alter the mathematics of the Senate.

“Parliamentary rules exist to protect the people’s voice, not to justify exclusion,” he added.

Oliva, a former president of the IBP Cebu City Chapter, former deputy governor for Eastern Visayas, and former national director of the IBP, likewise distanced herself from the Board of Governors’ position.

While recognizing the board’s authority as the organization’s governing body, Oliva stressed that its statement should not be construed as representing the views of all members of the legal profession.

“The Board is not the collective voice of more than 70,000 Filipino lawyers on every contentious constitutional issue,” she said.

Oliva noted that the position paper was issued without consultation with local chapters, regional governors, or the broader IBP membership.

“No referendum was conducted. No consensus was sought. No chapter resolutions were gathered. No nationwide legal discourse was undertaken prior to its issuance,” she said.

For that reason, she said the statement “does not represent” her position.

Oliva also challenged the legal basis for treating the Senate’s membership as effectively reduced from 24 to 22 because of the circumstances involving Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa.

“Absence is not vacancy. Detention is not expulsion. Unavailability is not resignation,” she said.

According to Oliva, Article VI, Section 16(2) of the 1987 Constitution clearly states that “a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business,” meaning 13 senators are required in a 24-member Senate.

She likewise argued that reliance on Avelino v. Cuenco is misplaced because the circumstances surrounding the 1949 case differed significantly from the June 3 proceedings.

The Supreme Court ruling involved a Senate session that had already commenced with a valid quorum before a walkout by a faction of senators, she said.

“That is a far cry from asserting that twelve senators may convene, constitute a quorum from the outset, declare leadership positions vacant, and reorganize the Senate,” Oliva said.

She also pointed to provisions in the 1987 Constitution requiring Senate officers to be elected by a majority vote of all members of the chamber, a constitutional framework that he said did not exist in the same form during the Avelino case.

The IBP Board of Governors on Thursday defended the legality of the June 3 session, arguing that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Avelino v. Cuenco supports the exclusion of senators who cannot realistically be compelled to attend.

The board said Senators dela Rosa and Estrada were beyond the Senate’s coercive powers at the time, effectively reducing the number of senators available for quorum purposes from 24 to 22.

Under that interpretation, the 12 senators present constituted a valid majority of the available membership and were therefore authorized to conduct official business.

The legal opinion has since been echoed by political coalition 1Sambayan and former Senate President Franklin Drilon, who both argued that established jurisprudence supports a practical approach to determining quorum.

However, senators aligned with former Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano, including Senators Loren Legarda and Pia Cayetano, have maintained that any valid reorganization of the chamber requires at least 13 votes.(TGP)