Highland Vibes

Maraming ganap sa Davao. May kasanayan sa illegal.

Drug na naman sa Davao. Mataas talaga kalakaran ng drug sa Davao.

EXPLAINER: When 12 becomes a majority: the Avelino v. Cuenco argument

The usual rule is simple: the Senate has 24 members, so a majority is 13.

That is why the pro-Cayetano camp keeps repeating the line: “12 is not 13.”

As a slogan, it sounds neat. As a legal argument, it is incomplete.

The then-SOLID 11’s argument rests on Avelino v. Cuenco, the 1949 Supreme Court case involving a Senate leadership dispute. In that case, the Supreme Court recognized the idea that the Senate’s working membership could be treated as 23 because one senator was outside the country and could not participate. From that number, 12 became enough for a majority.

In plain English: legal math is not always about the number of chairs in the room. Sometimes, it is about who can actually sit, vote, and perform the job.

That is the opening created by Avelino.

Under normal circumstances, 24 senators means 13 is needed. But if one senator cannot actually participate, the argument becomes: the working Senate is no longer 24. It is 23. And if the working Senate is 23, then 12 is a majority.

Now add the present situation.

Senator Ping Lacson explained the position this way:

“Sen. Cayetano is no longer SP. With 12 senators present, a quorum was declared out of the base number of 22 since Sens. de la Rosa and Estrada are outside the ‘coercive power’ of the Senate (Avelino v Cuenco. GR No 2821).”

That quote is important because Lacson is not merely saying “12 is enough.” He is saying 12 became enough because the base number, in their stance, was not 24. It was 22.

That is where Senator Bato dela Rosa and Senator Jinggoy Estrada enter the equation.

If Senator Jinggoy Estrada could not participate because he is detained at the Quezon City Jail, and Senator Bato dela Rosa was likewise outside the Senate's practical coercive reach, then the Solid 11 can argue that the working Senate was effectively reduced to 22.

And if the working number is 22, then 12 is not merely enough. It is the majority.

That is the key point.

The issue is not whether the Senate has 24 seats on paper. It does. The issue is whether all 24 senators were actually capable of participating in the business of the Senate at that moment.

Think of it like a boardroom. If the company has 24 directors on paper, but two are legally or practically beyond the board’s reach, the remaining directors cannot be forced into paralysis simply because two seats are empty. Otherwise, absence becomes a weapon. The institution becomes hostage to the missing.

That is what the Avelino logic tries to prevent.

This point was also echoed in the joint statement of the new Senate majority. They emphasized that the quorum issue is not “uncharted,” because Avelino v. Cuenco already recognized the principle that a quorum of 12 may be determined based on the number of members legally able to discharge the functions of the Senate.

That is a crucial phrase: legally able to discharge the functions of the Senate.

In short, the then-SOLID 11 (SOTTO MINORITY BLOC) is not counting imaginary numbers. It is arguing from functional capacity. Who can actually participate? Who is within reach? Who can discharge the duties of a senator at that moment?

The joint statement also cited an institutional precedent from 2015, when the Senate recognized a quorum of 12 senators who were within its jurisdiction. The point is not that 12 automatically wins every time. The point is that the Senate has previously allowed work to continue when the chamber had enough members legally available to act.

In other words: the Senate cannot be turned into a waiting room for the absent.

Government work cannot be placed on hold every time a faction decides not to show up, or when certain members are beyond the chamber’s reach. The Senate exists to legislate, deliberate, conduct oversight, and serve the public interest. It is not supposed to become a hostage scene dressed up as parliamentary procedure.

Now add the Cayetano factor.

The Senate President is not the owner of the Senate. He is the presiding officer. His role is to keep the institution functioning. He is not a human padlock.

If the Senate President refuses to preside, and the other presiding officers or floor leaders aligned with him also fail to make the chamber function, the argument of the SOTTO MONITORY BLOC or the SOLID 11 becomes stronger: the chair cannot kill the chamber.

That is also consistent with the logic of Avelino v. Cuenco. In that case, the Senate President abandoned the chair, and the remaining senators continued because the Senate could not be allowed to stop functioning just because the presiding officer walked away.

The principle is practical and institutional: the Senate is bigger than the person holding the gavel.

Former Senate President Franklin Drilon captured this reality with a sharp line: Cayetano is now “like a king without a kingdom.”

That argument goes straight to the heart of the matter.

A Senate President without a functioning majority may still claim the title, but the chamber no longer moves by title alone. The Senate moves through numbers, quorum, rules, and the ability to conduct business. A crown does not command a kingdom when the kingdom has already walked away.

In practical terms, Drilon’s point is that the new majority already controls the Senate floor. Cayetano may insist on the chair, but if the numbers have shifted, the floor has shifted, and the chamber has started acting through a new majority, then the political reality has already changed.

That strengthens the SOLID 11’s position.

Their argument is not simply that they gathered bodies in the room. Their argument is that the Senate could no longer be frozen by a presiding officer who had lost functional control of the institution.

So when Drilon says Cayetano is “like a king without a kingdom,” he is describing the gap between formal claim and political reality.

Cayetano may claim the gavel.

But the NEW MAJORITY under Senator Win Gatchalian can argue that the Senate, as an institution, had already moved.

This is also why Senator Chiz Escudero’s presence mattered. The joint statement praised him for taking the floor and confronting the institutional issue directly. In their framing, his action allowed the Senate to proceed with matters too important to be left unresolved and too consequential to be set aside.

That detail matters politically.

The SOLID 11 needed more than numbers. They needed an institutional pivot - someone who could help move the chamber from stalemate back to function. Escudero’s presence gave the proceeding weight because it showed that the issue was no longer just a factional fight. It was now about whether the Senate would continue to do its job.

So the SOLID 11’s legal and institutional stance is this:

The Senate has 24 seats, but quorum may be assessed based on actual members legally able to participate under extraordinary circumstances.

If Bato dela Rosa and Jinggoy Estrada were outside the Senate’s coercive power, the working Senate may be treated as 22.

Out of 22, 12 is a majority.

If a quorum exists, the Senate may proceed with internal business, especially matters involving its organization, officers, and committees.

If the Senate President refuses to preside, that refusal cannot be used to paralyze the institution.

The Senate’s constitutional mandate is to work, deliberate, legislate, provide oversight, and serve the public interest.

PAGHALALFOR SENATE PRO TEMPORE? ✅ PERU FOR SENATE PRESIDENCY?? OOPS ❌
IT’S A DIFFERENT BALLGAME.

This is why Senator Ping Lacson’s statement deserves a closer look:

“Hence, we voted to declare all positions vacant, although we could not yet elect a new Senate President because we lacked the 13 votes required under the Constitution.”

That line is legally careful.

Senator Ping Lacson is drawing a distinction between declaring positions vacant or reorganizing internal offices, and electing a new Senate President. He is effectively saying: yes, they had enough under the Avelino stance to establish quorum and act on internal organization, but no, they did not yet have the 13 votes needed to elect a new Senate President under the Constitution.

That is why the committee and internal leadership moves are important.

Committees are part of the Senate’s internal organization. The Constitution allows each House to determine its own rules, and the Senate Rules govern how officers and committees are organized. Once the SOLID 11, plus Senator Chiz Escudero, established the argument that a quorum existed, they had a basis to proceed with internal reorganization.

The more delicate question is the Senate Presidency itself.

The Constitution specifically says the Senate President must be elected by a “majority vote of all its respective Members.”

That makes the Senate Presidency a heavier constitutional question than ordinary committee organization or other internal officers.

That is why the distinction is not just technical.

For the Senate President, the threshold comes directly from the Constitution.

For other officers and internal arrangements, the Senate has more room under its own rules, because the Constitution allows each House to choose other officers and determine its proceedings.

So why not immediately elect a new Senate President?

Because that is the more vulnerable legal battleground. Reorganizing internal leadership and committees is the safer first step. It allows the chamber to function without immediately forcing the hardest constitutional question.

Put simply: the SOLID 11 opened the doors first before trying to replace the lock.

The bottom line:

Avelino v. Cuenco does not mean 12 is always enough.

It means 12 may be enough when the Senate’s actual participating membership is reduced by special circumstances.

That is the flaw in the “12 is not 13” argument. It assumes a normal 24-member Senate functioning under normal conditions. But Avelino exists precisely because the Supreme Court dealt with a situation where the Senate was not functioning under normal conditions.

If Bato and Jinggoy were outside the Senate’s coercive power, and Cayetano’s camp failed to keep the chamber running, then the SOLID 11 has a serious legal argument: the Senate could not be held hostage by absence.

This is not just arithmetic. This is institutional survival.

The joint statement captured the broader point clearly: the Filipino people deserve a Senate that shows up, does its job, and places public service above politics.

That is the real issue behind the quorum fight.

Not the bruised pride. Not the staged outrage. Not the desperate grip on the big chair. This is about keeping the Senate from becoming a hostage of its own officers.

The Senate has work to do. And when absence, uncertainty, or political maneuvering threatens to stall the chamber, the institution has every reason to move forward.

The new majority has brought the Senate back from political hostage-taking. The institution does not belong to one faction, one presiding officer, or one wounded ego. When the gavel becomes a padlock, the Senate is duty-bound to find another

Tungkol sa usapang maleta, naniniwala ba kayo na malemaletang Pera Ang binibigay ng politician sa Iglesia ng Culto bawat election kapalit ng boto?

The president of the republic of the Philippines.

Kilala niyo ba Siya. Si congressman Duterte Yan ng davao