With the issue on the legality of the recent Senate coup continuing to loom over the country, some lawyers under the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) have raised alarms on the supposed “collective” stance of the organization from its Board of Governors.
In a statement issued on 4 June, the IBP released its take on the matter of the number of senators required to declare a quorum in order for the Senate to conduct official business as prescribed under the 1987 Constitution and the much deliberated Avelino vs Cuenco case of 1949.
The board summarized its findings by stating that the coup conducted in favor of electing Senator Sherwin “Win” Gatchalian as Senate President Pro Tempore was lawful as the quorum of 12 senators was supported under the Supreme Court’s ruling on the aforementioned court proceeding.
“All acts, resolutions and decisions made by the Senate during its session of June 3, 2026 are presumed to be official acts of the Philippine Senate following the presumption of regularity in the discharge of official functions,” the statement read.
Under the landmark Avelino vs Cuenco case, noted that the quorum of 12 was legal due to the absence of two senators who were unable to attend the session due to different personal matters.
The IBP took this ruling into consideration given the recent arrest of Senator Jinggoy Estrada for the non-bailable offense of plunder and the public disappearance of Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa that is in hiding after the issued arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC).
It noted that the Constitution had left the determination of a quorum through a practical scope, wherein the ability of the Senate to function could not be blocked simply due to the realistic inability of its members to attend.
Not Legally Binding
On the contrary, several lawyers a part of the IBP mentioned that the stand of the organization falls flat when fully contextualized and the facts of the referenced legislation were laid out.
Through a lengthy explanation on their social media page, Codilla Law expressed its dissent for the declaration of the organization, particularly as there was said to have been no consultation that had taken place for all members to provide their perspective on the issue.
The firm noted that it did not believe that a quorum was validly created, subsequently deeming the election of Gatchalian and the new committee leaderships of the Senate invalid.
It said that the circumstances of the Avelino case could not be compared to the session carried out through the 12 senators present during 3 June as during the session that was the subject of the issue, the plenary began with a total of 14 members.
Codilla Law further explained that the total number of senators under the mentioned session was reduced to 23 as one senator was not currently in the jurisdiction of the Philippines, a factor not present in the Gatchalian-led quorum.
“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,” the post read.
This was a finding shared by Atty. Proculo Sarmen who noted that the framers of the 1987 Constitution did not leave any room for interpretation in consideration of the total majority of the Senate.
Sarmen stated that the phrase “all of the members” in Congress was deliberately utilized in crafting the governing legislation as it had sought to avoid the ability of governing bodies to manipulate constitutional powers.
This precedent was said to matter primarily under impeachment processes, declaration of a state of war, expulsion of members, and constitutional amendments that may be enacted by the legislative body.
The lawyer noted that if the Constitution was to be interpreted in a way that only “functioning members” of the Senate were allowed to vote in legislative functions, it could be used as a tool of the executive to rule favorably by ordering the imprisonment, suspension, or expulsion of members of the upper house.
“Under such interpretation, a political administration could effectively lower constitutional voting requirements simply by causing enough senators to become unavailable,” he argued.
“The framers of the 1987 Constitution inserted that phrase precisely to prevent temporary political circumstances, executive pressure, or factional advantage from reducing the level of consensus required for the exercise of the Senate’s most important constitutional powers,” Sarmen concluded.
Political opinions should be made on personal accounts
In a different take on the pressing concern, Atty. Renz Tagle said that an all encompassing organization such as the IBP should be publicizing legal positions on “politically divisive” issues as it hosted a diverse population of members with different stances.
Tagle stated that such statements should not be published as the position of the whole organization as it painted the picture that only its opinion was correct and that any lawyer that would say otherwise was wrong.
“It would have been better if you made your opinions in your own personal capacity in the exercise of freedom of speech. Pero hindi tama na gamitin niyo yung opisina ninyo para sa inyong sariling kapakinabangan. Diyan nagsisimula ang pang-aabuso ng kapangyarihan,” he said.
The lawyer mentioned that their membership under the IBP was not necessarily by choice, noting that it was compulsory for a practicing attorney in the country to align themselves and pay dues under the organization.
