Nine senators urge PH Supreme Court not to dismiss petition on June 3 quorum

Senator Alan Peter Cayetano and eight other senators have asked the Supreme Court not to dismiss as moot and academic their petition challenging the validity of the Senate's June 3 session.

The senators argued that the constitutional issues it raises remain unresolved despite subsequent leadership changes.

In a pleading dated June 29 and released by the Supreme Court's Office of the Spokesperson on June 30, the group maintained that their June 11 petition continues to have significant legal consequences, including on the ongoing impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte.

“The constitutional questions raised in the Petition dated 11 June 2026 continue to carry immediate and real consequences” as the issues “affect not only the parties and the institutional independence of the Senate, but also the legitimacy of official acts undertaken pursuant to the challenged proceedings, including the conduct of the ongoing impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte.”

The senators argued that failing to resolve the issues would leave uncertainty over the exercise of constitutional powers and the validity of official government actions.

“To leave these questions unresolved would create incertitude in the exercise of constitutional powers, cast doubt on the validity of official acts, expose public expenditures of funds to future constitutional challenge, and allow for issues that may soon re-emerge to evade judicial review through subsequent political developments,” they stressed.

The petition challenges the June 3 Senate session attended by 12 senators, during which Senator Sherwin Gatchalian was elected Senate President Pro Tempore before later serving as acting Senate President. The group argues that the session lacked the constitutionally required quorum.

Although Gatchalian was later elected Senate President during a June 17 special session attended by 13 senators, Cayetano and his fellow petitioners argued that the subsequent vote did not cure the alleged constitutional defects of the earlier proceedings.

“The constitutional violations arising from the June 3, 2026 rump session was not cured when respondent Senator Gatchalian was subsequently elected Senate President by 13 senators during the Senate's special session on June 17, 2026.”

The petitioners emphasized that their case is not simply about who currently leads the Senate but about whether the June 3 session and all actions taken during it were constitutionally valid.

“To be clear, the Petition does not merely seek to determine who presently occupies the Office of the Senate President. Rather, it seeks a definitive determination of whether respondents... lawfully convened and conducted the rump session on June 3, 2026, declared the existence of a quorum, elected Senate officers, reorganized Senate committees, amended the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials in anticipation of the commencement of the impeachment of the Vice President on July 6, 2026, and exercised official authority pursuant thereto. Those questions... remain unanswered notwithstanding the events of June 17, 2026.”

They also noted that while the June 17 session elected a Senate President and Senate President Pro Tempore, it did not address other positions filled during the disputed June 3 session.

“The positions of Secretary of the Senate and of Sergeant-at-Arms remain to be illegally occupied under a vote of a non-existent majority of the Senate on June 3, 2026, which conducted the challenged rump session and purported business without a quorum and without meeting the threshold vote of 13, i.e., a majority of all the members of the Senate,” they said.

The group further urged the Supreme Court to resolve what they described as continuing constitutional questions over the voting threshold required under the Constitution.

“Recent and continuing developments involving relevant constitutional provisions raised in this pending case and the Senate of the Philippines prove that now, more than ever, the Honorable Court has to urgently resolve the dispute on threshold votes required under the language of the provisions of the Constitution.”

They likewise argued that Gatchalian's election on June 17 could not retroactively validate the June 3 proceedings.