Senator Loren Legarda, erstwhile Senate President Pro Tempore, said on Wednesday, June 3, the sudden takeover by the new majority bloc is unconstitutional, saying this raises serious constitutional concerns.

Legarda pointed out that no senator can validly act as Senate President on the strength of only 12 votes. 

The senator cited Article VI, Section 16(1) of the 1987 Constitution, “The Senate shall elect its President by a majority vote of all its respective Members.” 

“Since the Senate is composed of twenty-four (24) senators, that majority is thirteen (13). By the fact that the Senators present did not have thirteen votes, they could not validly elect a Senate President or authorize any Senator to act as Senate President,” Legarda said.

Under Rule II, Section 2 of the Rules of the Senate, “The officers of the Senate shall be elected by the majority vote of all its members.” 

“This means that the Senate President Pro Tempore, the Senate Secretary, and the Sergeant-at-Arms also required at least thirteen votes,” she said.

She also said the actions of the 12 senators “is clearly recognized and admitted by the minority senators in their public statements and interviews. 

“That is why the minority Senators did not vote for a Senate President: they lacked the required thirteen (13) votes. In the same way, they could not have legally elected a Senate President Pro Tempore because they also lacked the required  thirteen (13) votes,” she noted.

“When the Constitution and the rules are clear, these must be applied as written,” Legarda stressed. 

She said the temporary absence of some members should not become a reason to lower their representation or weaken the mandate of the people who elected them.

“Until there is a vacancy, resignation, expulsion, final disqualification, or other legal basis recognized by law, their seats remain part of the Senate’s full membership,” she reiterated.

“We remain firm in our respect for the Constitution. Any proceeding conducted without the constitutionally required quorum raises serious questions of validity and cannot be recognized as consistent with the clear mandate of the Constitution,” the lawmaker stressed.