Legarda: A 12-Senator “quorum” cannot produce a valid election of Senate officers

“Avelino is not a shortcut to reorganize the Senate.” Senate President Pro Tempore and four-term Senator Loren Legarda emphasized that even if some invoke Avelino v. Cuenco to justify a 12-senator session, such reliance cannot validate the election or replacement of Senate officers by less than the vote required under the 1987 Constitution and the Rules of the Senate.

“A 12-senator session cannot be used to reorganize the Senate. The Constitution recognizes a 24-member Senate, and both quorum and the election of officers require a majority of that membership. That number is thirteen,” Legarda said.

Legarda said the doctrine, which arose from a 1949 case under the 1935 Constitution, must be understood in its proper historical and legal context. At that time, the 1935 Constitution merely stated that the Senate shall elect its President. That was it. It did not yet contain the present requirement of the current Constitution that the Senate President must be elected “by a majority vote of all its respective Members.”

The change first appeared in the 1973 Constitution (Art. VIII, Sec. 7), which required the Speaker of the National Assembly to be elected “by a majority vote of all its Members.” This clearer and stricter formulation was later adopted in the 1987 Constitution (Art. VI, Sec. 16, par. 1) for the election of the Senate President and Speaker.

Legarda said the insertion of the phrase “by a majority vote of all its respective Members” must be given meaning. Under settled principles of constitutional construction, no word, phrase, or amendment is presumed to have been placed in the Constitution for nothing. The law must be read to give life to every word (“ut res magis valeat quam pereat”). The change from the 1935 text to the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions must therefore be read as intentional. It was meant to fix the vote required and prevent the election of officers through a reduced or shifting number.

“This is why it is dangerous to apply old rulings mechanically without understanding their constitutional context and history. Avelino was decided under the 1935 Constitution. The text changed after that. The present Constitution now fixes the vote required, and that requirement cannot be ignored,” Legarda said.

In the present day, Article VI, Section 16(1) of the 1987 Constitution now controls. It provides that “The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members.” In a Senate composed of 24 members, this means at least 13 votes.

Legarda stressed that this requirement is not a technicality, but a constitutional safeguard.

She added that the Senate Rules do not change the Constitution or invent a separate requirement. They simply carry the constitutional standard forward. Under Rule II, Section 2 of the Rules of the Senate, “The officers of the Senate shall be elected by the majority vote of all its members.” This covers the Senate President, Senate President Pro Tempore, Secretary of the Senate, and Sergeant-at-Arms.

“Wala namang iniiba rito. The Rules only follow the Constitution. If the Senate President needs the majority vote of all members, Rule II, Section 2 applies that same standard to all Senate officers. In a 24-member Senate, that standard has only one meaning: 13 votes,” Legarda said.

This distinction is also reflected in Rule XV, Section 44 of the Rules of the Senate, which provides that: “Except during the election of officers as provided in Section 2, a majority of the Senators shall constitute a quorum…” Legarda said this exception draws a clear line between ordinary quorum and the election of officers.

“Klarong-klaro sa Rules. The quorum rule itself says ‘except during the election of officers.’ That means the Senate intentionally set a different rule for elections. Ordinary business is governed by quorum. Election of officers is governed by majority vote of all members – again, 13 votes,” Legarda said.

Legarda emphasized that quorum is different from the election of officers. Quorum determines whether the Senate may conduct ordinary business, while the election or replacement of officers is governed by the separate and stricter rule of majority vote of all members. In either case, the denominator is not reduced by mere absence. Senators who remain in office continue to be counted for purposes of determining the majority of the Senate. Only an actual legal vacancy, such as death, resignation, removal, or final disqualification, can change that count.

She warned that confusing the two would lead to an absurd result. If Avelino were stretched to allow the election of officers based only on a reduced quorum or the number actually present, then even seven or eight Senators could theoretically claim authority to reorganize the Senate. That cannot be what the Constitution means.

“A 1949 doctrine cannot override the 1987 Constitution. It cannot be used to deprive a duly elected Senate officer of office through a lower vote,” Legarda said.

Legarda said the issue goes beyond personalities and concerns the integrity of the Senate as an institution. “The Senate cannot be reorganized by shortcuts. Its officers derive authority from the Constitution and the Rules. When the Constitution requires 13 votes, no doctrine, practice, or convenience can reduce that number,” she concluded. (30)

———————————————————————-

Legarda: Ang 12-Senator “quorum” ay hindi sapat para maghalal ng mga opisyal ng Senado

“Hindi puwedeng gawing shortcut ang Avelino para baguhin ang liderato ng Senado.”

Iginiit ni Senate President Pro Tempore at four-term Senator Loren Legarda na kahit may nagbabanggit ng kasong Avelino v. Cuenco para sabihing sapat na ang 12 senador para mag-session, hindi nito mababago ang malinaw na nakasaad sa 1987 Constitution at sa Rules of the Senate tungkol sa tamang bilang at proseso sa pagpili ng mga opisyal ng Senado.

“Hindi maaaring maging basehan ang session ng labindalawang (12) senador para baguhin ang Senado. Ayon sa Konstitusyon, may 24 na miyembro ang Senado. Para magkaroon ng quorum at makahalal ng opisyal, kailangang may majority. Ang bilang na iyon ay labintatlo (13),” ani Legarda.

Ipinaliwanag ni Legarda na ang doktrinang ito ay nagmula sa isang lumang kaso noon pang 1949 na saklaw pa ng 1935 Constitution. Ang tamang pagbasa dito ay dapat may tamang pag-intindi sa konteksto ng batas at kasaysayan.

“Noon, simple lang ang nakasaad sa 1935 Constitution: The Senate shall elect its President. Wala pa noon ang requirement na mayroon ngayon na ang Senate President ay dapat mahalal by a majority vote of all its Members,” ani Legarda. Aniya, unang lumabas ang pagbabagong ito sa 1973 Constitution at muling isinama sa 1987 Constitution.

“Mahalaga ang pagdagdag ng linyang by a majority vote of all its Members. Hindi naglalagay ng salita ang Konstitusyon nang walang dahilan. Sinadya ang pagbabagong ito para gawing malinaw ang kinakailangang boto at para maiwasan ang pagpili ng mga opisyal gamit ang pabago-bagong bilang,” paliwanag ni Legarda.

“Delikado kung basta na lang gamitin ang mga lumang desisyon nang hindi isinasaalang-alang na nagbago na ang Konstitusyon. Ang Avelino ay desisyon noong panahon ng 1935 Constitution. Iba na ang teksto ngayon. Ang kasalukuyang Konstitusyon ang dapat sundin,” ani Legarda.

Sa ilalim ng Article VI, Section 16(1) ng 1987 Constitution, malinaw na nakasaad:

“The Senate shall elect its President … by a majority vote of all its respective Members.”

Sa Senado na may 24 na miyembro, nangangahulugan ito ng hindi bababa sa labintatlong (13) boto. Binigyang-diin ni Legarda na hindi simpleng technicality lamang ang requirement na ito kundi isang constitutional safeguard. Dagdag pa niya, hindi rin binabago ng Rules of the Senate ang Konstitusyon. Pinantayan lamang nito ang standard ng Konstitusyon.

Sa ilalim ng Rule II, Section 2:
“The officers of the Senate shall be elected by the majority vote of all its members.” Saklaw nito ang Senate President, Senate President Pro Tempore, Secretary of the Senate, at Sergeant-at-Arms.

“Walang bagong requirement dito. Sinusunod lang ng Rules ang Konstitusyon. Kung ang Senate President ay nangangailangan ng majority vote ng lahat ng miyembro, ganoon din ang standard para sa ibang opisyal ng Senado. At sa Senado na may dalawampu’t apat (24) na miyembro, iisa lang ang ibig sabihin niyan: labintatlong (13) boto,” ani Legarda.

Makikita rin ito sa Rule XV, Section 44 ng Senate Rules, na nagsasabing:
“Except during the election of officers as provided in Section 2, a majority of the Senators shall constitute a quorum…” Ayon kay Legarda, malinaw na ipinapakita nito na magkaiba ang ordinaryong quorum at election of officers.

“Klarong-klaro sa Rules. Mismong quorum rule na ang nagsasabi: ‘except during election of officers.’ Ibig sabihin, sinadya ng Senado na magkaroon ng hiwalay na rule para sa halalan. Ang ordinaryong business ay simpleng quorum lang ang kailangan, samantalang ang election of officers ay majority vote of all members. Muli, labintatlong (13) boto,” pahayag ni Legarda.

Binigyang-diin din niya na magkaiba ang quorum at election of officers. Ang quorum ay para malaman kung puwedeng magpatuloy ang ordinaryong business ng Senado. Ang election o pagpapalit ng opisyal ay may mas mataas na requirement.

Aniya, hindi nababawasan ang kabuuang bilang dahil lang may absent. Patuloy na binibilang ang mga senador hangga’t nananatili silang miyembro ng Senado. Tanging tunay na legal vacancy, gaya ng kamatayan, pagbibitiw, pagtanggal sa puwesto, o final disqualification, ang makapagpapababa sa bilang.

Nagbabala rin siya na kung hahayaang gamitin ang Avelino para payagan ang election of officers base lang sa nabawasang quorum o sa bilang ng present, hahantong ito sa absurdong resulta.

“Kung ganoon ang logic, kahit pito o walong senador puwedeng mag-claim na may kapangyarihan silang baguhin ang Senado. Hindi iyon ang ibig sabihin ng Konstitusyon,” ani Legarda.

“Hindi maaaring manaig ang isang doktrina noong 1949 laban sa 1987 Constitution. Hindi ito maaaring gamitin para tanggalin ang isang halal na opisyal ng Senado gamit ang mas mababang bilang ng boto,” dagdag niya.

Iginiit ni Legarda na lampas ito sa personalidad at tumutukoy sa integridad ng Senado bilang institusyon.

“Hindi puwedeng baguhin ang Senado gamit ang shortcut. Ang awtoridad ng mga opisyal nito ay nanggagaling sa Konstitusyon at sa Rules. Kapag sinabi ng Konstitusyon na kailangan ang 13 boto, walang doktrina, practice, o convenience ang makababawas doon,” pagtatapos niya. (30)