“Section 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives, its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members. Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.
(2) A majority of its Members shall constitute a quorum to do business…
(3) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business…
(4) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior…”
(Section 16, Article VI of the Constitution)
As a graduate of the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law in Diliman, Quezon City, former professor of Constitutional Law, Political Law, and International Law at Xavier University (Ateneo de Cagayan), former head of the Opposition group in the Committee on Revision of Laws and Constitutional Amendments in the Regular Batasan Pambansa, former Commissioner of Immigration, and trial lawyer in several nationally prominent cases for more than sixty years, I offer this opinion on the current impasse in the Senate.
Senate President Cayetano: Under the above-quoted provisions of the Constitution, Senator Peter Cayetano remains as President of the Senate. Why? He was elected by a majority of the Senate, and twelve members cannot declare his position vacant, as it requires a majority vote of the entire Senate to do so. You do not have to drink Pepsi or sing La Paloma to understand that.
No quorum: The election of Gatchalian and others, as well as the declaration of vacancies in positions of officers and employees of the Senate, are acts that are illegal, unconstitutional, and criminal. Under Section 16(3) of the Constitution, a majority of the Senate constitutes a quorum to do business, and twelve senators do not constitute a majority. A majority of twenty-four is thirteen. The actions of Sotto, Gatchalian, Zubiri, Escudero, et al. were not done by a majority. Again, you do not have to drink Pepsi or sing La Paloma to understand that.
Criminal offenses: The acts of Sotto, Gatchalian, Escudero, and Zubiri, et al. are not only unconstitutional and illegal but also criminal. These may constitute usurpation of public authority, grave coercion, and violations of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and Section 4 in relation to Section 11 of RA 6713. Senate President Cayetano should file the appropriate complaints before the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice.
Disorderly conduct and contempt: The actions of Sotto, Gatchalian, et al. also constitute disorderly behavior, grave misconduct, and direct contempt under Senate rules. Accordingly, the Senate President may take appropriate disciplinary action under its rules.
Subpoena Marcos: For allegedly siding with Sotto and Gatchalian and publicly validating their actions, President Marcos may likewise be asked to explain his conduct in relation to the Senate controversy.
Resolution and conclusion: Some members of the opposing group are not lawyers and may lack formal training in constitutional law. The Cayetano group includes experienced lawyers such as Alan Peter Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, and Rodante Marcoleta. In assessing the correct interpretation of the law, the argument appears to lean in favor of the Cayetano group. As for the opposing side, knowing how to drink Pepsi and sing La Paloma is not the path to legal vindication but may instead lead to conviction—whether in court or in the court of public opinion.
ia/xf
