YACAP

“Hindi tayo papayag na muli pong ikulong ang ating demokrasya… LABAN”
- SP Alan Peter Cayetano

Salamat mga Ka-Yacap sa ! Para sa katotohanan! Para sa bayan!🙏🇵🇭

𝐂𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐆𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞

Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano on Thursday pushed back against the claims that they were delaying urgent government action, noting that those who claimed to have a quorum and control of the chamber yesterday failed to act on the very measures and appointments they said were being held up.

Sen. Kuya Alan pointed out that despite warnings about pending confirmations in the Commission on Appointments (CA) and urgent legislation such as the Anti-Hospital Detention Act, the session ended without advancing either.

For the Senate President, the events exposed the real issue at hand: that one side was focused on consolidating power, while the other was focused on upholding what is right.



Source: Office of Senator Alan Peter “Compañero” Cayetano

Naaayon ba sa Constitution ang nangyari sa Senado ng June 3, 2026? Basahin natin ito👇

As a member in good standing of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), I write to respectfully submit that the recent statement issued by the 27th Honorable Board of Governors regarding the June 3, 2026 Senate quorum should not be construed as the collective or consensus position of the entire IBP membership.

Because this matter was not subjected to prior consultation with the general membership, the statement properly reflects the perspective of the Board rather than the unified stance of the organization’s constituents. Consequently, it does not necessarily represent my personal views or those of numerous other members of the Bar.

In this regard, it is my considered personal legal opinion that no valid quorum was constituted during the proceedings in question, and consequently, Senator Win Gatchalian was not validly elected as Senate President Pro Tempore, nor were the “new” committee leaderships lawfully established.

In light of the profound constitutional implications of this controversy, I earnestly implore the public and my colleagues in the legal profession to exercise rigorous factual and legal verification before drawing conclusions. In an era where complex political maneuvers are easily oversimplified, it is incumbent upon us to look past mere rhetoric, critically examine established jurisprudence, and anchor our understanding strictly on the text of the Constitution.

𝐒𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲

To properly contextualize this matter, I submit the following summary of the legal principles demonstrating that the Senate session on June 3, 2026, lacked constitutional validity and that the landmark ruling in Avelino v. Cuenco (1949) is entirely inapplicable:

𝟏. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐧𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐨 𝐄𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

The Supreme Court recognized a narrow, exceptional quorum in Avelino based on strict factual pillars that do not exist in the present controversy:

𝗜𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗠𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆: The Avelino session opened with an undisputed majority of 14 senators before dwindling to 12. The June 3 session was initiated by exactly 12 senators, never meeting the baseline majority.

𝗔𝗯𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗝𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: In Avelino, a senator was physically outside the country, legally reducing the active composition to 23 (making 12 a majority). On June 3, no sitting senator was outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines.

𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝘂𝗹𝘀𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀: The Avelino bloc exhausted constitutional remedies by attempting to compel the attendance of absent members. In contrast, the 12-member bloc on June 3 made no such attempt and swiftly adjourned, actively preventing the participation of the remaining members.

Under the 𝙙𝙤𝙘𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙨, a precedent applies only if the facts are substantially the same. 𝗕𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟯 𝗦𝗲𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 , 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀: 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗲𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝟮𝟰 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗾𝘂𝗼𝗿𝘂𝗺 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝟭𝟯 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀.

𝟐. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬

The Avelino ruling allowed a minority of 11 votes to elect leadership because it was governed by the 1935 Constitution, which did not require a majority of all members to elect officers.

Conversely, 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝗩𝗜, 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝟭𝟲(𝟭) 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝟭𝟵𝟴𝟳 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗲𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗯𝘆 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗟𝗟 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀.

𝟑. 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩

Because the 12 senators present on June 3 lacked both the quorum to conduct business and the minimum 13 votes required by the 1987 Constitution to reorganize the chamber, all acts performed during that session are null and void ab initio (from the beginning):

𝗡𝗼 𝗤𝘂𝗼𝗿𝘂𝗺 & 𝗩𝗼𝗶𝗱 𝗔𝗰𝘁𝘀: The June 3 session was unconstitutional; therefore, all resolutions passed and reorganizations attempted carry no legal authority.

𝗜𝗻𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗨𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱: Senator Alan Peter Cayetano remains the legitimate Senate President. Concurrently, the incumbent Senate President Pro Tempore, Senate Secretary, and Sergeant-at-Arms remain unchanged in their respective offices.

𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲𝘀 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗰𝘁: All standing Committee Chairs and memberships remain entirely unaffected. Senator Win Gatchalian holds no lawful title as Senate President Pro Tempore or Acting Senate President.

===================================
Disclaimer: The legal insights and opinions expressed herein are the personal views of the author and do not represent the official stance of any affiliated academic institutions or organizations. Content shared is for discussion and educational purposes only. It should not be construed as legal advice or as creating an attorney-client relationship. For specific legal issues, readers should consult independent counsel.

Hindi dapat double standards. Dapat fair lang.

“Let’s have the same standard for everyone.”

Ito ang sabi ni Senator Kuya Alan Peter Cayetano kahapon sa Presscon sa Senado.



Source: Office of Senator Alan Peter “Compañero” Cayetano

13

That’s the Constitution’s number.