The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday dismissed a petition seeking to validate the presence of 12 senators as a lawful quorum during the controversial 3 June session of the 20th Congress, ruling that the petitioner lacked legal standing to bring the case.
In a statement, the SC en banc said it dismissed the petition filed by John Barry T. Tayam “for lack of legal standing,” holding that he failed to demonstrate that he had suffered, or was under imminent threat of suffering, any direct injury arising from the actions he challenged.
“The SC ruled that Tayam failed to show that he suffered, or was at imminent risk of suffering, any direct injury from the actions he challenged,” the Court said.
The Tribunal’s dismissal did not address the merits of Tayam’s arguments. With the petition dismissed, the Supreme Court has, for now, declined to intervene in the leadership dispute, leaving the political and institutional questions to continue outside judicial review.
Tayam had asked the high court, through a 20-page petition for certiorari, to declare that the presence of 12 senators during the 3 June session constituted a valid and constitutional quorum.
He also sought confirmation that all actions taken during the session, including leadership changes, vacancy declarations, and committee reorganizations, were legal and binding.
Senate control unresolved
The session became a focal point of an ongoing leadership dispute in the Senate after 12 senators were present, allowing the chamber to declare a quorum and proceed with organizational changes.
The quorum was reached after Senator Francis Escudero attended the session, bringing the number of senators present to 12.
Gatchalian had previously defended the validity of the proceedings, citing the landmark case Avelino v Cuenco, in which the Supreme Court held that an absolute majority of 12 out of 22 members could constitute a constitutional majority for quorum purposes.
However, the Senate leadership dispute remains unresolved politically, with Senator Alan Peter Cayetano continuing to assert that he is the “legitimate, legal, moral Senate President.”
Tayam argued that he had standing to sue as a Filipino citizen, taxpayer, registered voter and licensed professional teacher, claiming that the Senate impasse affected public governance and warranted the relaxation of procedural rules.
Central to his petition was the argument that only 22 senators were effectively available for Senate business because Sen. Jinggoy Estrada was under preventive detention while Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa was allegedly beyond the chamber’s coercive jurisdiction. Based on that premise, Tayam argued that a quorum of 12 senators was constitutionally sufficient.
