MANILA, Philippines – No less than the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and deans of several law schools in the country confirmed that the Senate’s quorum on June 3, consisting of 12 senators was valid and legal.

“This Avelino ruling emphasizes a practical approach: the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that allows the Senate to function, and not be blocked by the absence of Members who cannot realistically be made to attend,” the IBP said in a statement on Thursday, June 4.

The IBP is the official and mandatory national organization for Filipino lawyers.

After being paralyzed due to the then-majority’s decision to skip sessions and avoid reaching a quorum, the Senate finally reached its required number to function on June 3, when Senator Chiz Escudero appeared at the upper chamber to join the then-minority bloc in the session.

Since the Senate reached a quorum or the minimum number of senators present to do official business, the senators then moved to declare all positions vacant and elected Senator Win Gatchalian as Senate president pro tempore (in essence, acting Senate president), and the new chairpersons of committees.

The Gatchalian bloc’s basis is the 1949 Supreme Court (SC) case of Avelino v. Cuenco, where the SC held that the quorum 12, during a Senate session on February 21, 1949, was legal. The SC explained that at the time, 12 was enough to reach a quorum because the available senators then were only 23, not 24.

The SC, in its ruling, explained that the wording “majority of each House” in the Constitution to reach a quorum does not mean “all” the members. So by computing the required number to reach a quorum, the Senate looks into the number of available members, not all of its members.

The IBP explained that the Avelino doctrine was applicable to the June 3 session.

It noted that two senators — International Criminal Court suspect Senator Bato dela Rosa and Payatas-detained Senator Jinggoy Estrada — cannot be compelled by the Senate to be present during its sessions. The Senate has this power called coercive jurisdiction, under Article VI, Section 16(2) of the 1987 Constitution, which allows legislative chambers to compel the attendance of its members.

And since Dela Rosa and Estrada are not under this coercive jurisdiction, they cannot be included in computation for the quorum.

“With their exclusion, the total number of Senators considered available was twenty-two (22). Twelve (12) Senators therefore constituted a majority of those available, and thus a valid quorum was constituted for the Senate to conduct official business,” said the IBP.

“In short, the Senate session of June 3, 2026 was lawful and valid following the Avelino doctrine because a quorum of 12 Senators was constituted. 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,” it added.

Play Video

Thoughts from law deans

In a joint statement, deans and professors of several law schools, including retired Supreme Court associate justice Adolf Azcuna and Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates Villegas, said that the Gatchalian bloc was correct in interpreting that the senators under the Senate’s coercive jurisdiction were only 22.

“To insist that he (Dela Rosa) should be counted in determining a majority for purposes of quorum is to accord someone who is evading arrest and the processes of law, and deliberately putting himself beyond the reach of any legal coercion, the power to hold the entire legislature hostage. It is a choice between insistence on numbers over the functioning of the Legislative Branch of government,” said the legal experts.

They also reiterated that it was not the first time that a quorum of 12 happened, noting that 12 senators also reached a quorum during a session on May 5, 2015.

“When the Constitution requires a “majority of each House” it contemplates a majority of the members actually deliberating and voting on measures,” they explained.

The legal experts also debunked the misconception that the standard number for quorum is 12: “Let it be assumed ex hypothesi that one senator is deceased, and we would have the same situation where 12 report for a session and 11 do not, would it be insisted that 24 remains the reckoning number for determining quorum?”

They also explained that the Avelino doctrine still applies to the present because at the time, the senators were 24, and the composition today remains the same.

“Therefore, whatever rule was laid down in respect to quorum in the Avelino case continues to apply because the composition of the Senate has remained unchanged,” the legal experts added. – Rappler.com