A senior high school teacher has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to uphold the legitimacy of the takeover of the Senate leadership by the bloc led by Sen. Win Gatchalian, seeking a ruling that would validate the 3 June session where the group “assumed control” of the chamber and reorganized key leadership positions.
In a 20-page petition filed Friday, petitioner John Barry Tayam asked the High Court to affirm that the Senate had a valid quorum and all the actions taken during the contested session were constitutional and legally binding.
If granted, the petition would effectively validate the move by the then minority bloc of 12 senators to install Gatchalian as acting Senate president and recognize the subsequent reorganization of the Senate committees, including the designation of Sen. Erwin Tulfo as chairman of the influential Blue Ribbon Committee.
Tayam named Senators Alan Peter Cayetano, Pia Cayetano and Loren Legarda as respondents.
DAILY TRIBUNE sought a comment from Tayam on what motivated him to bring the matter before the High Court and whether he received any form of assistance in filing the petition.
He had yet to respond as of press time.
Questions about Tayam’s filing of the petition arose because of the expense and time such filings entail.
‘Unconstitutional’
The controversy in the Senate stemmed from competing interpretations on the legality of the quorum called by the 12 minority senators on 3 June.
Legarda and the other senators aligned with Cayetano argued the reorganization was unconstitutional because the 1987 Constitution requires the affirmative vote of a majority of all 24 senators, or at least 13 votes, to elect officers of the Senate.
They maintained that no legal doctrine could override that constitutional requirement.
Cayetano wrested the Senate presidency from Sen. Vicente Sotto III on 11 May with a 13-9-2 vote, after Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa emerged from hiding to cast the decisive 13th vote.
Dela Rosa would go back into hiding in the early hours of 14 May, following a shooting incident in the Senate premises the night before between Senate security personnel and National Bureau of Investigation agents.
Tayam argued that existing jurisprudence allows the exclusion of senators who are unable to attend because of detention or other circumstances when determining the number required to conduct official business.
He cited the 1949 case Avelino v. Cuenco, which arose after senators voted to replace then Senate President Jose Avelino with Mariano Cuenco during a leadership dispute.
In that case, the Supreme Court largely treated the controversy as an internal Senate matter and declined to intervene directly, but the ruling has since been cited in debates involving quorum requirements and leadership contests within the Senate.
‘Valid quorum’
Supporters of the Gatchalian bloc have relied on the Avelino doctrine to argue that quorum requirements adjust to the number of senators who are actually available and capable of attending a session.
Under that interpretation, the 12 senators present on 3 June, led by Gatchalian, constituted a valid quorum empowered to transact business and elect officers.
Invoking the doctrine of expanded judicial review, Tayam said the Supreme Court has the authority to resolve matters involving any branch of government, including Congress.
