Was the recent Senate flood control hearing valid? Lawyers weigh in

Lawyers on Friday weighed in on the flood control hearing conducted by the Cayetano bloc on Thursday, which the Gatchalian bloc called “bogus.”

For Atty. Allan Panolong, Integrated Bar of the Philippines national president, the proceedings at the Senate on Wednesday, June 3 —which vacated all seats and installed Senator Sherwin Gatchalian as the Senate President Pro Tempore—were “presumed regular and legal” because the quorum was met.

Because of this, Panolong explained that the election of Senator Erwin Tulfo as the new chairperson of the powerful Senate blue ribbon committee, replacing Senator Pia Cayetano, could also be considered valid.

“I would say the June 3, 2026 session was legal. So they elected the new officers of the Senate…so they have replaced ‘yung mga naka-appoint na do’n previously (those who were previously appointed in the committees),” he said in a Super Radyo dzBB interview.

“Halimbawa kung ang committee is, for instance, the Blue Ribbon Committee, ang may karapatan na mag-call ng hearing is the new chairmanship,” he added.

(For example if the committee is the Blue Ribbon Committee, the one who has the right to call a hearing is the new chairmanship.)

Atty. Paolo Tamase, associate dean from the University of the Philippines-College of Law, also said the hearing yesterday was “not ordinary or unusual” and it could also be argued that it might not even be legal.

“Una, wala ho ‘yung Senate Secretariat. At the very least, ang pinapakita no’n ay iregular ang proseso,” he said in a separate dzBB interview.

(First of all, the Senate Secretariat was not there. At the very least, it showed that the process was irregular.)

“‘Yung analogy dito ay parang nagkaroon ng press conference sa Senado na may mga senador doon kasama diumano doon sa komite, kasama ‘yung mga staff nila. Pero may malaking question mark kung meron mang legal effect ‘yun nangyari kahapon,” he added.

(The analogy here is like there was a press conference in the Senate with senators who were allegedly members of the committee, including their staff. But there is a big question mark if what happened yesterday had any legal effect.)

Tamase also explained the implications should the hearing be proven illegal.

“Una, meron bang obligasyon na um-attend noon para sa mga resource persons nila? At pangalawa, protektado ba ‘yung sinabi nung iba resource persons nila doon sa session na ‘yun. Legal ba ‘yung oath na ibinigay nila or isinumpa nila upang magsabi ng totoo?” Tamase said.

(First, did the resource persons have the obligation to attend? And secondly, were the resource persons protected? Was the oath they took to say the truth legal?

During the gathering, men claiming to be former members of Marines alleged that they delivered suitcases of money to several prominent personalities, including President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, Senators Vicente "Tito" Sotto III and Erwin Tulfo, and Representative Leila de Lima, among others.

It was Senator Alan Peter Cayetano who administered the oath to the supposed ex-Marines. His sister, Senator Pia Cayetano, presided over the hearing.

But the Gatchalian bloc slammed the conduct of the hearing, describing it as "bogus, unofficial, and unauthorized."

Asked if the “ex-Marines” could still enjoy immunity from suit following their allegations, Panolong said, “If an office…or a group has no authority to conduct business, wala rin siyang kaukulang maibigay na karapatan. Wala nga siyang legal personality eh. Wala rin pong maibibigay na karampatang privileges.”

(If an office...or a group has no authority to conduct business, they have no corresponding rights to give. They do not have a legal personality, they can’t give necessary privileges.)

Twelve senators on Wednesday elected Gatchalian as Senate President Pro Tempore and later declared him as acting Senate President.

EXPLAINER: What happened in Avelino v. Cuenco case on Senate leadership change?

Citing the case of Avelino v. Cuenco, Gatchalian said the Supreme Court found that an absolute majority of 12 out of 22 members could constitute a constitutional majority for quorum purposes. —AOL, GMA News