Senator Loren Legarda on Saturday, June 6, has challenged the legality of the Senate’s recent leadership reorganization, stating that the election of key officers and the reshuffling of committee leadership violated both the Constitution and the chamber's rules.

In a statement issued on June 6, Legarda said the election of Senate officers based on the votes of only 12 senators fell short of the constitutional requirement for a majority vote of all 24 Senate members.

Citing Article VI, Section 16(1) of the 1987 Constitution, Legarda stressed that the Senate president must be elected by "a majority vote of all its members". With 24 elected senators, she said at least 13 votes were required to constitute a majority.

Legarda also pointed to Rule II, Section 2 of the Senate Rules, which states that Senate officers—including the Senate President, Senate President Pro Tempore, Senate Secretary, and Sergeant-at-Arms—must likewise be elected by a majority vote of all members.

"The rule is clear: thirteen votes are required," Legarda said.

According to Legarda, only 12 senators were present and voted during the session that resulted in changes to the Senate leadership. This made the election of the Senate President Pro Tempore, Senate Secretary, and Sergeant-at-Arms unconstitutional and contrary to Senate rules.

She further questioned the validity of the declaration of vacancies and the appointment of new chairpersons to several Senate committees.

Legarda cited Article VI, Section 16(2) of the Constitution, which provides that a majority of each house of Congress shall constitute a quorum to conduct business. She argued that at least 13 senators must be present in session for the Senate to validly undertake official actions, including committee reorganizations.

The senator also rejected comparisons to the 1949 Supreme Court case Avelino v. Cuenco, which has been cited by some lawmakers to defend the recent Senate reorganization.

Legarda said the case was decided under the 1935 Constitution and should not be used to justify reducing the number of senators required for a quorum, elections, or leadership changes under the 1987 Constitution.

She warned that accepting such an interpretation could set a precedent allowing Senate reorganizations whenever senators are absent due to illness, travel, detention, or other reasons.

"If that happens, the composition of the majority and the Senate leadership would no longer be determined by representation of the people, public interests, or the issues of the day," she said.

Legarda maintained that representation, public interest, legislative performance, and contemporary issues should determine Senate leadership, not the temporary absence of lawmakers.

"The Constitution is the guide of our democracy. It is what we must defend—for the Senate, for our institutions, and above all, for every Filipino," she said.