Amid the sudden influx of legal luminaries on social media, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) broke its silence and took a stand on whether or not the June 3 session was legal.

The IBP is a national organization of lawyers created to elevate the standards of the legal profession in the country and according to the group, that session was lawful and valid.

“The Senate session of June 3, 2026 was lawful and valid following the Avelino doctrine because a quorum of 12 senators was constituted,” the IBP said in a statement released on Thursday, June 4.

“All acts, resolutions and decisions made by the Senate during its session of June 3, 2026 are presumed to be official acts of the Philippine Senate following the presumption of regularity in the discharge of official functions,” it added.

That acts appear to include the ouster of Alan Peter Cayetano as Senate president as claimed by the new majority and the reshuffle of key committees that include the Blue Ribbon. 

Senators Panfilo Lacson and Tito Sotto earlier said that Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian is the new acting president, acting in the sense that they could not still elect a permanent Sente president since the Constitution requires 13 votes. 

In the statement, the IBP established the connection between Article VI, Section 16(2) of 1987 Constitution and the landmark case of Avelino vs. Cuenco which was decided by the Supreme Court in 1949 in the determination of quorum.

And for netizens who are too smart in raising a question on that Constitution was used, the IBP appeared to have anticipated that as it insinuated that such argument is already immaterial since the Article VI, Section 16(2) of 1987 Constitution and Article VI, Section 10 (2) of the 1935 Constitution have identical wordings.

And the proof was stated in the IBP statement:

Article VI, Section 16(2) of 1987 Constitution provides that:

"A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide."

On the other hand, and Article VI, Section 10 (2) of the 1935 Constitution stated that:

"A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner and under such penalties as such House may provide."

Now the issue of how quorum is determined.

On this aspect, the IBP expounded the case cited by Gatchalian in justifying the hearing, that is, the Avelino vs. Cuenco case.

In a regular situation, the presence of 13 senators is required to constitute a quorum for a Senate with 24 senators. In the case of Avelino vs. Cuenco, the question is whether or not 12 senators are enough to constitute a quorum if there are only 23 senators present.

In that decision, it stated that indeed it was enough if the Senate is confronted with a situation when there are only 23 senators available.

In both the Constitutions, it was stated that the attendance of absent members can be compelled but in that case 77 years ago, the absent senator was abroad and cannot be compelled to attend.

Fast forward to June 2026, there were only 22 senators left since Jinggoy Estrada was already arrested again for a third case of plunder and Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa chose to make himself “unavailable” anew after realizing that the ICC warrant was indeed true when it was unsealed after he participated in the Senate coup on May 11.

This was also emphasized by the IBP in its statement,” One senator cannot be compelled to attend the session because he is detained in relation to a non-bailable offense. While another senator cannot be found, as in fact, his whereabouts appear to be unknown.”

“Therefore, these two (2) senators are considered as beyond the reach of the Senate and cannot be compelled to attend its sessions. As such, they were excluded for the count of Members used to determine quorum,” it added.

The Senate situation was further aggravated by the fact that then majority senators led by Cayetano were not attending the session from June 1 to June 2.

And on the third day when their absence threatened to violate the Constitution, Sen. Francis Escudero arrived—which constituted a quorum of 12 senators out of the 22 available senators.

“Twelve (12) Senators therefore constituted a majority of those available, and thus a valid quorum was constituted for the Senate to conduct official business,” the IBP statement read.

For the IBP, the arguments raised by the Gatchalian bloc that there was indeed a quorum that time is valid.

Because according to the IBP, “This Avelino ruling emphasizes a practical approach: the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that allows the Senate to function, and not be blocked by the absence of Members who cannot realistically be made to attend.”