Sotto: SC ruling on Senate leadership dispute shows petition 'not justiciable'
At A Glance
- Sen. Vicente "Tito" Sotto's statement came after the Supreme Court en banc dismissed the petition filed by high school teacher Barry Tayam who asked the High Court to declare the presence of the 12 senators during the June 3, 2026 session of the 20th Congress as a valid quorum.
- The former Senate chief said some people misunderstood the decision, but the petition "is not justiciable, therefore, no need for the Supreme Court to take it up."
Senator Vicente “Tito” Sotto III said on Thursday, June 11 that the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss a petititon filed by a teacher with regards to the Senate leadership dispute only shows that it was “not justiciable.”
“Some people misunderstand it. The petition is not justiciable, therefore, no need for the SC to take it up,” Sotto said in a message to reporters.
“Daming (So many) wishful thinking, trying to fool people into thinking na mali ang 12 of 23 (that the 12 out of 23 quorum was wrong),” the former Senate president said.
Sotto’s statement came after the SC en banc dismissed the petition filed by high school teacher Barry Tayam who asked the High Court to declare the presence of the 12 senators during the June 3, 2026 session of the 20th Congress as a valid quorum.
Following the dismissal of the case, the supporters of Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano’s bloc made online claims that the ruling was a victory for their camp. Cayetano has repeatedly maintained the June 3 leadership revamp in the Senate was illegal and that he is still the Senate president.
Last June 3, the 12 senators elected Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian as the Senate President Pro Tempore and subsequently designated as the Acting Senate President.
The SC, so far, did not rule on the merits of the case, particularly the validity of the quorum or the actions of the senator during the June 3 session.
The ruling instead was limited to the issue of legal standing, since the SC said Tayam was not the right party to bring the issue to the tribunal.
“The SC ruled that Tayam failed to show that he suffered, or was at imminent risk of suffering, any direct injury from the actions he challenged,” according to the Court’s press briefer.