06/05/2026
As a member in good standing of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and having had the privilege of serving as President of the IBP Cebu City Chapter, Deputy Governor for the Eastern Visayas Region, and National Director of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, I feel compelled to respectfully clarify an important institutional distinction regarding the recent statement issued by the IBP Board of Governors on the June 3, 2026 Senate quorum controversy.
The Board of Governors undoubtedly serves as the governing body of the IBP. However, those of us who have sat in leadership positions within the organization understand that the Board is not the collective voice of more than 70,000 Filipino lawyers on every contentious constitutional issue. It is our governing body. It is not our universal mouthpiece.
On matters of profound constitutional significance, particularly those involving competing interpretations of the Constitution and jurisprudence, it is important to recognize that the Board’s position does not automatically become the personal position of every member of the Bar.
More importantly, this particular statement was never subjected to consultation among the various Chapters, Regions, or the general membership. No referendum was conducted. No consensus was sought. No chapter resolutions were gathered. No nationwide legal discourse was undertaken prior to its issuance.
For that reason, while I respect the authority of the Board to express its institutional view, I respectfully disagree with the suggestion—whether express or implied—that the statement represents the unanimous or collective position of the entire Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
It does not represent mine.
After carefully reviewing the Constitution, the Senate Rules, and the jurisprudence being invoked to justify the June 3 proceedings, I remain unconvinced that a valid quorum existed.
Article VI, Section 16(2) of the Constitution is straightforward: a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business. In a Senate composed of twenty-four members, that majority is thirteen.
What is being advanced today is an interpretation that effectively reduced the Senate’s membership from twenty-four to twenty-two by treating the temporary absence or unavailability of Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Ronald dela Rosa as though their seats had somehow ceased to count for quorum purposes.
That proposition is deeply problematic.
Absence is not vacancy.
Detention is not expulsion.
Unavailability is not resignation.
The Constitution recognizes vacant seats. It does not recognize politically convenient arithmetic.
Likewise, I find the reliance on Avelino v. Cuenco misplaced.
The oft-cited case involved a Senate session that had already commenced with a valid quorum before a walkout occurred. The Supreme Court merely refused to allow a minority bloc to paralyze the institution by abandoning the session after proceedings had already begun.
That is a far cry from asserting that twelve senators may convene, constitute a quorum from the outset, declare leadership positions vacant, and reorganize the Senate.
Those are entirely different legal questions.
Equally significant is the fact that the 1987 Constitution now expressly requires the election of Senate officers by a majority vote of all the members of the Senate. This constitutional framework did not exist in the same form during the Avelino era.
For these reasons, it is my considered opinion that the constitutional requirement of quorum was not satisfied, that the actions undertaken during the June 3 proceedings are legally vulnerable, and that the matter deserves far more rigorous constitutional scrutiny than the public has thus far been led to believe.
Lawyers should never be afraid to disagree.
The strength of the legal profession has never been found in unanimity. It has always been found in the freedom to challenge prevailing interpretations, test legal theories against the Constitution, and follow the law wherever it leads.
And on this issue, I respectfully remain of the view that the Constitution has not yet been convincingly answered.
