Loren Legarda: Senate leadership shakeup unconstitutional

Senator Loren Legarda on Saturday reiterated her position that the June 3 leadership changes in the Senate were invalid and unconstitutional, maintaining that she remains the Senate President Pro Tempore.

“Si Loren Legarda po. Ang inyong Senate President Pro Tempore,” the senator declared in the closing line of a video statement.

(I am Loren Legarda. Your Senate President Pro Tempore.)

During a Senate session on June 3, Sherwin Gatchalian was designated Senate President Pro Tempore and acting Senate President after a quorum of 12 senators was established.

The leadership of several Senate committees was likewise reorganized.

In a report by Jonathan Andal on "24 Oras Weekend," Legarda argued that the number required to constitute a quorum is different from the number of senators needed to elect Senate officers.

“Labag sa Konstitusyon at alituntunin ng Senado ang nangyaring pagtatalaga ng Senate President Pro Tempore, Senate Secretary, at Sergeant-at-Arms dahil labindalawang senador lamang ang nasa plenaryo na bumoto,” she said.

(The appointment of the Senate President Pro Tempore, Senate Secretary, and Sergeant-at-Arms violates the Constitution and Senate rules because only 12 senators were present in the plenary to vote.)

Legarda also said the Gatchalian-led bloc cannot use the Supreme Court ruling in the Avelino v. Cuenco case as a “shortcut” to reorganize the Senate leadership.

“Taong 1949 pa ang kasong ito at naganap sa ilalim ng 1935 Constitution. Nagbago na ang Saligang Batas, 1987 Constitution na ang sumasaklaw sa atin,” Legarda said.

(This case dates back to 1949 and arose under the 1935 Constitution. The Constitution has since changed, and we are now governed by the 1987 Constitution.)

“Dito, malinaw na labintatlo ang kinakailangang boto para maghalal ng pangulo ng Senado, at parehong bilang din ang kinakailangan para sa pagboto ng mga opisyal,” she added.

(Under this framework, it is clear that 13 votes are required to elect a Senate president, and the same number is needed to elect other Senate officers.)

In response, Gatchalian said he respects Legarda's position.

“Of course, we respect her opinion, but matibay rin ang opinion ng Integrated Bar of the Philippines, 'yung association ng mga law school deans, of course, 'yung mga former Senate presidents,” Gatchalian said.

(Of course, we respect her opinion, but the opinions of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the association of law school deans, and former Senate presidents also carry significant weight.)

Gatchalian said the views of these groups deserve consideration because of their legal expertise on the issue.

He added that even the Civil Service Commission has begun recognizing his Senate presidency, noting that the authorized signatories for Senate employees' payroll are already being updated to reflect his designation.

On Wednesday, Malacañang Palace said it recognizes the Gatchalian leadership.

Gatchalian also said the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee's hearing on the alleged flood control scandal will proceed on Monday, June 8.

According to him, all senators, including members of the Cayetano-led bloc, have been invited to attend.

Padilla: Disagreements part of democracy

In the same report, Senator Robin Padilla said the public should welcome disagreements among senators.

“Nagtatrabaho kami, democracy 'to, dapat kayong matuwa. Sapagkat hangga't ang mga senador ay hindi nagkakaroon ng conspiracy, ibig sabihin tama ang binabayad niyong tax,” Padilla said.

(We are working. This is a democracy, so you should be glad. As long as senators are not engaged in a conspiracy, it means your taxes are being put to proper use.)

“Matakot kayo kapag kami ay nagkasundo-sundo na at meron nang conspiracy,” he added.

(You should worry only when we all agree and a conspiracy is already taking place.)

Roque claims possible switch

In a social media post, former presidential spokesperson Harry Roque alleged that another senator may defect from the Cayetano bloc.

Roque claimed the move would be part of a trade-off involving the dismissal of pending cases, although he did not provide evidence to support the allegation.

Asked about the political maneuvering surrounding the leadership dispute, Gatchalian said he understands the public's frustration and confusion.

“Sa ngayon, isantabi muna natin ang politika. Naiintindihan ko ang sentimyento ng taong-bayan—ang galit, ang pagkadismaya, at ngayon, ang pagkalito. Pero ang aking mensahe ay tuloy-tuloy ang trabaho,” Gatchalian said.

(For now, let us set politics aside. I understand the public's anger, disappointment, and now confusion. But my message is that the work must continue.)

As of writing, Gatchalian said no discussions have been held with the President regarding a special session and that no such session has been scheduled.

According to him, the issue remains a matter for the entire Senate membership to resolve.

“Wala pang specific target but kino-collate. This morning, kausap ko lang ang Senate secretary para malaman namin kung ano ang mga kailangang i-discuss, lalo na 'yung limang heneral na hindi pa napo-promote,” Gatchalian said.

(There is no specific target yet, but we are collating matters for discussion. This morning, I spoke with the Senate secretary to determine what needs to be taken up, particularly the cases of five generals whose promotions remain pending.)

Avelino v. Cuenco

The Avelino v. Cuenco ruling was handed down while the Philippines was still operating under the 1935 Constitution.

The Supreme Court doctrine from the case was formally adopted by the Senate in 2015 during the Senate presidency of former senator Franklin Drilon.

According to Paolo Tamase, associate dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law, the ruling remains relevant despite the adoption of a new Constitution.

“Tinitingnan natin ang teksto ng 1935 Constitution upang unawain ang 1987 Constitution. Ang thinking ay kung kinopya ng 1987 Constitution ang wording ng 1935 Constitution, susundin din natin ang intent at interpretasyon ng naunang probisyon,” Tamase said.

(We examine the text of the 1935 Constitution to understand the 1987 Constitution. The thinking is that if the 1987 Constitution retained the same wording as the 1935 Constitution, then the intent and interpretation of the earlier provision should likewise be followed.)

“In that light, pareho ang teksto ng 1935 at 1987 Constitutions at walang materyal na pagkakaiba ukol dito, at least sa usapin ng quorum,” he added.

(In that light, the texts of the 1935 and 1987 Constitutions are essentially the same, with no material difference on this point, at least with respect to the issue of quorum.)—Lyjah Tiffany Bonzo/MCG, GMA News