Alan, 8 allies ask SC to void June 3 shake-up
Nine senators led by Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to nullify the Senate’s June 3 reorganization, arguing that the proceedings were unconstitutional and warning that the dispute could affect the legitimacy of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impending impeachment trial.
The bloc aligned with the Dutertes filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the high court, seeking the issuance of a status quo ante order that would restore the chamber’s previous leadership and invalidate actions taken during the contested session.
The petitioners argued that the June 3 proceedings constituted a “rump session” because a valid quorum was allegedly lacking. They maintained that the Senate’s membership remained at 24 and that no senator had died, resigned, or been removed from office, making the attendance of only 12 senators insufficient to conduct legislative business.
The petitioners asked the Supreme Court to immediately order the respondents to cease performing functions arising from the June 3 session and to declare all resolutions, appointments and actions approved that day as null and void.
The petition sought judicial recognition of Cayetano as the rightful Senate President, Sen. Loren Legarda as Senate President Pro Tempore, and former Senate Secretary Jose Luis Montales as the chamber’s legitimate secretary.
Montales was the lone non-lawmaker among the petitioners.
3 allies not in petition
Conspicuously, three members of the bloc—Senators Joel Villanueva, Mark Villar and Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa—were not among the petitioners. They were part of the majority that staged a coup on May 11 that ousted Vicente “Tito” Sotto III and elected Cayetano as Senate President. They were also together in skipping plenary sessions from June 1 to 3.
A staff member of Villar said the senator is currently abroad for “personal reasons.”
The petition was filed ahead of the Senate’s scheduled impeachment proceedings against the Vice President, with a pretrial conference set for June 18 to 25 and the formal trial scheduled to begin on July 6.
The petitioners challenged the legality of the June 3 session, during which a new majority bloc took control of the chamber, elected Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian as Senate President Pro Tempore, designated him as acting Senate President, and reorganized key leadership positions and committee chairmanships.
Named as respondents were the 12 senators belonging to the new majority, including Gatchalian and Sen. Francis Escudero, whose attendance in the June 3 session enabled the Sotto group to establish a quorum and reorganize the chamber’s leadership.
Also named respondents were newly appointed Senate Secretary Renato Bantug Jr. and Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Alfredo Corpus.
Invalid session?
According to the filing, Cayetano, through Montales, had informed senators before June 3 that no session would be held that day. However, Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri allegedly insisted that a session would proceed because a quorum was expected.
The petition claimed Montales disputed the existence of a quorum, arguing that only 12 senators were present. Zubiri responded by citing the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Avelino v. Cuenco, which addressed quorum requirements in situations where senators were absent due to detention or official travel.
The petitioners argued that the precedent did not apply to the June 3 proceedings.
They contended that the circumstances differed significantly from a May 5, 2015, Senate session in which a 12-member quorum was recognized because several senators were detained or on official trips abroad. The petitioners asserted that no election of Senate officers took place during the 2015 session and that a majority of all senators would have been required had such business been conducted.
“What transpired was clearly unconstitutional,” the petition stated, arguing that the June 3 proceedings were void from the outset and therefore incapable of producing any legal effect.
The senators further argued that the election of Cayetano and Legarda during the May 11 leadership contest could not be overturned through what they described as an invalid session.
Lacson warning
Sen. Panfilo Lacson criticized the timing of the petition, saying Cayetano and his allies should have sought SC intervention earlier to give the high tribunal sufficient time to study and rule on the case. Filing it on the eve of the special session called by President Marcos, he said, “smacked of yet another desperate dirty trick by Cayetano to exercise ‘authority’ as Senate President.”
Lacson also warned against possible disruptions during Wednesday’s special session, saying the Gatchalian-led majority was prepared for any moves by Cayetano. He said Gatchalian and the majority bloc would not allow any attempt to undermine the proceedings, adding that the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms may face a difficult task if another crisis erupts. “It is not accurate to say that Alan Peter Cayetano created this ongoing crisis. In actual fact, he is the crisis,” Lacson said.
Tied to VP impeachment
Beyond the leadership dispute, the petition directly linked the reorganization to the impeachment proceedings against the Vice President.
The filing alleged that the new majority sought to gain control of the Senate and, by extension, the impeachment court that will hear the charges against Duterte.
“Respondent senators are not even hiding the fact that their powerplay is animated towards managing in a certain way the impeachment trial of Vice President Duterte,” the petition stated.
The group warned that the contested reorganization could “imperil the integrity and validity” of the impeachment proceedings if left unresolved.
Citing what it described as “extreme urgency,” the petition urged the Supreme Court to act before the impeachment trial moves forward. The senators also accused the executive branch of interfering in Senate affairs, pointing to Malacañang’s recognition of the new leadership as evidence of what they called executive overreach.
The filing comes amid escalating tensions in the Senate over control of the chamber and its role as an impeachment court.
Legal experts and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines have previously expressed support for the validity of the June 3 session and the 12-member quorum that enabled the leadership change. The new majority has likewise maintained that the proceedings were consistent with established parliamentary practice and Supreme Court jurisprudence. —WITH A REPORT FROM TINA G. SANTOS
