Several lawyers and law firms have pushed back against the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ (IBP) position supporting the legality of the Senate reorganization that “removed” Senator Alan Peter Cayetano as Senate president and elevated Sen. Sherwin “Win” Gatchalian as Senate president pro tempore, arguing that the organization overstated its authority and misapplied legal precedent.
The criticism followed a 4 June statement by the IBP Board of Governors concluding that the 12 senators who participated in the 3 June Senate session constituted a valid quorum under the Supreme Court’s 1949 ruling in Avelino v Cuenco.
Governors concluding that the 12 senators who participated in the 3 June Senate session constituted a valid quorum under the Supreme Court’s 1949 ruling in Avelino v Cuenco.
The board said the arrest of Sen. Jinggoy Estrada and the continued absence of Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa justified adjusting the Senate’s quorum requirement.
“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 IBP said.
Codilla Law rejected the IBP’s conclusion, arguing that the circumstances in Avelino v Cuenco differed significantly from those surrounding the 3 June Senate session.
The firm also questioned the IBP’s claim to speak for the entire organization, saying no broad consultation of members had been conducted.
‘All members’
According to Codilla Law, the Senate session examined in Avelino began with 14 senators present, while one senator was outside Philippine jurisdiction, reducing the body’s effective membership to 23 — circumstances absent in the current dispute.
“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 firm said.
Atty. Proculo Sarmen echoed that position, arguing that the framers of the 1987 Constitution deliberately used the phrase “all the members” to prevent political manipulation of constitutional voting requirements.
He warned that reducing the voting base to “available” or “functioning” senators could create a dangerous precedent.
“Under such interpretation, a political administration could effectively lower constitutional voting requirements simply by causing enough senators to become unavailable,” Sarmen said.
“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,” he added.
Should be apolitical
Atty. Renz Tagle separately argued that the IBP should avoid taking official positions on politically divisive issues.
According to Tagle, presenting a legal opinion as the organization’s collective position creates the impression that dissenting lawyers are wrong.
“It would have been better if you expressed your opinions in your personal capacity as an exercise of freedom of speech. But it is not right to use your office for your own benefit. That is where the abuse of power begins,” he said.
Tagle also noted that membership in the IBP is compulsory for practicing lawyers, making it inappropriate to portray the board’s position as the unanimous view of the legal profession.
The controversy stems from the ongoing dispute over whether the Senate’s 3 June reorganization, carried out by a 12-member bloc, was constitutional.
The issue remains unresolved and has become central to the broader struggle for control of the Senate amid the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.
