Senator Alan Peter Cayetano and eight other senators asked the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday, June 16, to declare null and void all the resolutions passed by 12 senators, led by Senator Sherwin Gatchalian, during their June 3 session.

In a petition, Cayetano and his group also asked the SC to nullify the declaration of a quorum by the 12 Gatchalian-led senators.

Instead, the petition asked the SC to restore all the affected senators to their positions and offices before the “null and void” June 3 session, and to stop those elected from asserting and performing their functions and duties.

Also, it asked the SC to direct all officers and personnel to assume their positions and duties prior to the June 3 proceedings.

The petition also asked the SC to issue a status quo ante order (SQAO) that would restore the Senate’s organization before the June 3 session.

Among other things, the June 3 session led to the election of Gatchalian as Senate President Pro Tempore and acting Senate president, and the re-organization of all Senate committees.

It was not known immediately if the Cayetano petition could be taken up by the SC during its full court session on Wednesday, June 17.

Aside from Cayetano, the other petitioners were Senators Lorna Regina B. Legarda, Pilar Juliana “Pia” S. Cayetano, Jinggoy E. Estrada, Christopher Lawrence T. Go, Rodante D. Marcoleta, Maria Imelda Josefa “Imee” r. Marcos, Robinhood C. Padilla, and Camille A. Villar.

Named respondents were Senators Gatchalian, Paolo Benigno A. Aquino IV, Joseph Victor G. Ejercito, Francis Joseph G. Escudero, Ana Theresia N. Hontiveros, Panfilo M. Lacson, Manuel M. Lapid, Francis N. Pangilinan, Vicente C. Sotto III, Erwin T. Tulfo, Rafael T. Tulfo, and Juan Miguel F. Zubiri.

The petition told the SC that Senator Alan Cayetano remains to be the Senate president while Senator Legarda is the Senate President Pro Tempore.

Alan Cayetano and his group said that the SC petition was their opportunity “to make a categorical stand for constitutional clarity and good governance amid significant political turmoil.”

They said “it is their collective duty and responsibility to ensure that the constitutional principle of separation of powers and the institutional independence of the Senate of the Philippines are preserved and protected in the face of machinations that aim to destroy the core of constitutional democracy.”

They clarified that “this petition is not a mere dispute over political titles or legislative hierarchy; it is a defense of the constitutional architecture of our Republic.”

They pointed out: “By engineering the ouster of the sitting Senate President and installing a successor favored by the Executive Branch — all during a session that conspicuously lacked the requisite legal quorum — a breakaway legislative bloc has not only subverted internal parliamentary rules but has struck a dangerous blow against the institutional integrity of the Senate and the bedrock constitutional principle of separation of powers.”

At the same time, they said: “To allow an un-quorumed Senate minority to reshape the leadership of a co-equal branch of government is to sanction a constitutional crisis by subtraction. A Senate stripped of its independent voice ceases to be a counterweight to power and becomes a rubber stamp for executive ambition.”

Thus, they called the SC “to exercise its judicial power to halt this overreach, reinforce the canalized boundaries between the branches of government, and ensure that the Senate remains a true co-equal partner in governance — beholden only to the Constitution and the people, not to the dictates of the Executive.”

The petitioners stressed that the Senate is composed of 24 members. They said: “A majority of twenty-four (24) is 13 — one more than half. Twelve (12) is exactly one-half of twenty-four (24), not a majority thereof. The word ‘majority’ in Philippine constitutional law and jurisprudence has a settled meaning: it refers to ‘more than half’ of the total membership.”

The petitioners were represented in the SC by lawyers Apolinario L. Caymo II and Leonardo R. Benedicto Jr.

Last June 10, the SC dismissed for lack of legal standing the petition filed to declare legal and constitutional the quorum of 12 senators during their session last June 3.

Dismissed was the petition filed by John Barry T. Tayam -- a teacher and a resident of Las Pinas City.

The SC’s Office of the Spokesperson said the High Court ruled that “Tayam failed to show that he suffered, or was at imminent risk of suffering, any direct injury from the actions he challenged.”

A law dictionary defines locus standi or legal standing as “a personal and substantial interest in a case such that a party has sustained or will sustain direct injury because of the challenged government act.”