Can 12 Out of 24 Really Be Called a Majority?

𝐍𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐓𝐔𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐀𝐋 𝐐𝐔𝐎𝐑𝐔𝐌

𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐈𝐂𝐋𝐄 𝟔, 𝐒𝐄𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝟏𝟔 of the 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐓𝐔𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 provides:

“The 𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐄 shall elect its 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓, by a 𝐌𝐀𝐉𝐎𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐘 of 𝐀𝐋𝐋 its 𝐌𝐄𝐌𝐁𝐄𝐑𝐒.”

Ang 𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐀𝐃𝐎 ay binubuo ng 𝟐𝟒 na miyembro at ang 𝐌𝐀𝐘𝐎𝐑𝐘𝐀 ay 𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐈 maaaring 𝐌𝐀𝐁𝐀𝐁𝐀 sa 𝟏𝟑.

Ang 𝐊𝐀𝐋𝐀𝐇𝐀𝐓𝐈 ng 𝟐𝟒 ay 𝟏𝟐.

𝐒𝐀𝐀𝐍 𝐌𝐀𝐍, 𝐊𝐀𝐈𝐋𝐀𝐍 𝐌𝐀𝐍, ang 𝐊𝐀𝐋𝐀𝐇𝐀𝐓𝐈 ay 𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐈 𝐌𝐀𝐘𝐎𝐑𝐘𝐀 dahil para maging 𝐌𝐀𝐘𝐎𝐑𝐘𝐀, kailangan 𝐇𝐈𝐆𝐈𝐓 sa 𝐊𝐀𝐋𝐀𝐇𝐀𝐓𝐈 ang iyong hanay o bilang.

𝟏𝟑 ang bilang na 𝐇𝐈𝐆𝐈𝐓 sa 𝐊𝐀𝐋𝐀𝐇𝐀𝐓𝐈 ng 𝟐𝟒 at 𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐈 𝟏𝟐.

𝐇𝐔𝐖𝐀𝐆 𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐩𝐚-𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄 𝐬𝐚 𝐃𝐎𝐒𝐄.

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐓𝐔𝐇𝐈𝐍, 𝐈𝐏𝐀𝐆𝐓𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐆𝐎𝐋 𝐀𝐓 𝐈𝐓𝐀𝐆𝐔𝐘𝐎𝐃 𝐀𝐍𝐆 𝐒𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐆𝐀𝐍𝐆 𝐁𝐀𝐓𝐀𝐒!

 

[KingSemreh]

Fyi. Ginamit yung Avelino vs. Cuenco kung saan mismo yung Supreme Court na nag pasya na kung ang senator ay nasa labas ng Jurisdiction o hindi pwede piliting dumalo, binabawas sila sa total na bilang para makakuha ang quorum. dahil jan, 12 senators lang kailangan para maging valid yung session kasi si Bato at Jinggoy ay hindi lang basta "Absent". Si Bato matagal na hindi nagtatrabaho sa Senado, si Jinggoy nakakulong na eh paano sila mapapasama sa botohan? sige nga? makakapagtrabaho pa ba sila kung yung isa ay hindi na nagtatrabaho (nagtatago) at yung isa nasa kulungan na?

The same case is not applicable. Avelino vs Cuenco was happend on 1949 where under 1935 constitution. The constitution was already amended.

The structural change in the 1987 Philippine Constitution targets the exact numerical base (the denominator) used to compute the majority vote required for changing leadership: [You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.]

• Before (1949 Scenario): The majority was calculated based on the number of senators physically present and capable of doing business (dropping the baseline from 24 to 23 because one senator was out of the country).
• Now (Under the 1987 Constitution): The text explicitly locks the base to the total number of constitutional seats.

 

[Kumadas]

The same case is not applicable. Avelino vs Cuenco was happend on 1949 where under 1935 constitution. The constitution was already amended.

The structural change in the 1987 Philippine Constitution targets the exact numerical base (the denominator) used to compute the majority vote required for changing leadership: [You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.]

• Before (1949 Scenario): The majority was calculated based on the number of senators physically present and capable of doing business (dropping the baseline from 24 to 23 because one senator was out of the country).
• Now (Under the 1987 Constitution): The text explicitly locks the base to the total number of constitutional seats.

Sometimes you have to bend the Law to be able to please the Malacañang

 

[PHC-YuriHaZahard]

50% ng 22 is 11 diba? plus 1 = 12 Quorum

Majority of each house ang naging botohan, Majority is 12 na.

"A Quorum is a majority of the members of the Senate."

If the Senate has 24 members:
Quorum = 24 ÷ 2 + 1 = 13

If the Senate has 22 members:
Quorum = 22 ÷ 2 + 1 = 12

Therefore:
24 senators → Quorum = 13
22 senators → Quorum = 12

Tsaka anong 1986 Constitution pinagsasabi mo? wala naman yun doon. Nag base sila sa 1949 Supreme Court landmark case Avelino v. Cuenco.

Yo, na susupersede ng 1987 constitution ang 1949 kase mas latest yung 1987, at sinabi sa batas na ALL of each member of the house. Walang sinabi na pag absent ang isa eh 23 nalang sila, or if detained ang isa at absent din yung isa eh 22 nalang sila, misinterpretation yan! Kase they are still Senators, si jinggoy detained pero di pa expelled as a Senator, that don't mean na may vacant sa senado ah, please lawakan nyo pag unawa sa batas. Avelino v Cuenco case di sha valid, kase nga OUT OF THE COUNTRY yung ibang senators and may na hospital pa, nakasaad sa batas na pag beyond the reach of the state meaning out of country dun lang masasabing 23 nalang sila if nag out of the country yung isa. Still, jinggoy and bato are senators. Kaya nga nung nagroll call eh 24 senators yung tinawag kase senators parin yung dalawa. Ngayon, ano dapat gagawin nila? ADJOURN and nothing else. Kase absent lang yung dalawa eh.

Kung sasabihin mo na Di nakaattend si Bato kase nagtatago, or ABSENT nga walang physical appearance, meaning to say yung other 10 na wala dun absent din? So meaning 12 nalang sila at 6, plus 1 = 7 pala para magka Quorum? That don't even make sense, diba?

Nakikita ko dito puro parin kayo about sa kulay, may mga Kulay parin kayo. Feeling makapilipino pero panay hate sa Kabila at hate dun? Hate sa tao hate sa kung salungat sa pananaw mo? Panalo dito mga magnanakaw parin eh, imbis na magkaisa ang mga tao, ngayon divided na. Can't you see what the Government has done to us? They divide us! Kase dun nila makokontrol mga tao! Imagine mo 805billion ang ninakaw pero here we are, tayo pa nagbabangayan, nag-aawayan, nakikipagbunoan sa pamilya at mga kaibigan. What a load of crap. Dapat magkaisa tayo at magtulungan sa kung ano ang dapat sa ating bayan, hindi yung panatiko tayo ng mga pare-pareho lang namang mga Kawatan!

Di ako Kakampink
Di ako DDS
Di ako Two-joints
Di ako Aktibista
Di ako KULAYAN!

I am pro-filipino and Managot ang dapat managot!

 

[Meawii]

Yo, na susupersede ng 1987 constitution ang 1949 kase mas latest yung 1987, at sinabi sa batas na ALL of each member of the house. Walang sinabi na pag absent ang isa eh 23 nalang sila, or if detained ang isa at absent din yung isa eh 22 nalang sila, misinterpretation yan! Kase they are still Senators, si jinggoy detained pero di pa expelled as a Senator, that don't mean na may vacant sa senado ah, please lawakan nyo pag unawa sa batas. Avelino v Cuenco case di sha valid, kase nga OUT OF THE COUNTRY yung ibang senators and may na hospital pa, nakasaad sa batas na pag beyond the reach of the state meaning out of country dun lang masasabing 23 nalang sila if nag out of the country yung isa. Still, jinggoy and bato are senators. Kaya nga nung nagroll call eh 24 senators yung tinawag kase senators parin yung dalawa. Ngayon, ano dapat gagawin nila? ADJOURN and nothing else. Kase absent lang yung dalawa eh.

Kung sasabihin mo na Di nakaattend si Bato kase nagtatago, or ABSENT nga walang physical appearance, meaning to say yung other 10 na wala dun absent din? So meaning 12 nalang sila at 6, plus 1 = 7 pala para magka Quorum? That don't even make sense, diba?

Nakikita ko dito puro parin kayo about sa kulay, may mga Kulay parin kayo. Feeling makapilipino pero panay hate sa Kabila at hate dun? Hate sa tao hate sa kung salungat sa pananaw mo? Panalo dito mga magnanakaw parin eh, imbis na magkaisa ang mga tao, ngayon divided na. Can't you see what the Government has done to us? They divide us! Kase dun nila makokontrol mga tao! Imagine mo 805billion ang ninakaw pero here we are, tayo pa nagbabangayan, nag-aawayan, nakikipagbunoan sa pamilya at mga kaibigan. What a load of crap. Dapat magkaisa tayo at magtulungan sa kung ano ang dapat sa ating bayan, hindi yung panatiko tayo ng mga pare-pareho lang namang mga Kawatan!

Di ako Kakampink
Di ako DDS
Di ako Two-joints
Di ako Aktibista
Di ako KULAYAN!

I am pro-filipino and Managot ang dapat managot!

Kahit ako medyo naguguluhan din talaga, pero hayaan nalang natin sa mga eksperto na nagsabi, kung îllégâl naman talaga yun kukuwestiyonin ng batas yun pero ayon sa mga experto ito sabi nila which is valid naman daw yun:

 

[Kumadas]

Kahit ako medyo naguguluhan din talaga, pero hayaan nalang natin sa mga eksperto na nagsabi, kung îllégâl naman talaga yun kukuwestiyonin ng batas yun pero ayon sa mga experto ito sabi nila which is valid naman daw yun:
View attachment 4207429
View attachment 4207430

Experto din naman si Allan Cayetano at Marcoleta, tas ang sabi nila di daw pwedi at îllégâl yon. Gawin kasi nilang 13 bat kasi pilit talagang i bend yong LAW, ano ba kinatatakutan nila? Mabubuking ba sila na magnanakaw? Di naman 8080 ang supreme court na kapag walang ebidensya basta nalang ikukulong, why not give a chance? Pera ng TAX payer pinaguusapan jan

Pinaka malapit sakanila si Zaldy Co na nilaglag silang lahat ano pa ba paniniwalaan mo? Nagbabase ka ng logic? Illogical na pinagsasabi mo, bayad ka ba? Sabihin mo nalang mas maiintindihan pa namin, puro nonsense naman yong argument mo, nagbibigay ka ng basless argument, IBP di naman sila Supreme Court at alam ko at marami akong kilala jan na kakampwet karamihan jan.

 

[Meawii]

Experto din naman si Allan Cayetano at Marcoleta, tas ang sabi nila di daw pwedi at îllégâl yon. Gawin kasi nilang 13 bat kasi pilit talagang i bend yong LAW, ano ba kinatatakutan nila? Mabubuking ba sila na magnanakaw? Di naman 8080 ang supreme court na kapag walang ebidensya basta nalang ikukulong, why not give a chance? Pera ng TAX payer pinaguusapan jan

Allan Cayetano and Marcoleta vs samahan ng mga lawyers sa pilipinas (Integrated Bar of the Philippines)?

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is the official, mandatory national organization for all lawyers admitted to practice law in the Philippines. Established by the Supreme Court, it regulates the legal profession, enforces ethical standards, and provides free legal aid to underprivileged Filipinos.​

Pinaka malapit sakanila si Zaldy Co na nilaglag silang lahat ano pa ba paniniwalaan mo? Nagbabase ka ng logic?

Illogical na pinagsasabi mo, bayad ka ba? Sabihin mo nalang mas maiintindihan pa namin, puro nonsense naman yong argument mo, nagbibigay ka ng basless argument, IBP di naman sila Supreme Court at alam ko at marami akong kilala jan na kakampwet karamihan jan.

Bayad? sabihan mo narin kaya akong nabigyan ng maleta!? HAHAHA mga linya ng DDS ehh.

Sabi mo nga di naman b*bo yung Supreme Court diba? kung may mali kukwestyunin yan ng korte natin at mga lawyers

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) yan hindi sila basta-bastang lawyers at puchu² lang na sasabihan mong kakampwet o bayaran. Mas marunong pa kayong mga DDS sa lawyers na eksperto sa batas noh?

 

[Kumadas]

Allan Cayetano and Marcoleta vs samahan ng mga lawyers sa pilipinas (Integrated Bar of the Philippines)?

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is the official, mandatory national organization for all lawyers admitted to practice law in the Philippines. Established by the Supreme Court, it regulates the legal profession, enforces ethical standards, and provides free legal aid to underprivileged Filipinos.​

Bayad? sabihan mo narin kaya akong nabigyan ng maleta!? HAHAHA mga linya ng DDS ehh.

Sabi mo nga di naman b*bo yung Supreme Court diba? kung may mali kukwestyunin yan ng korte natin at mga lawyers

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) yan hindi sila basta-bastang lawyers at puchu² lang na sasabihan mong kakampwet o bayaran. Mas marunong pa kayong mga DDS sa lawyers na eksperto sa batas noh?

SOURCE: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Patunay na di lahat ng IBP members ay pabor sa desisyon ng governor ng IBP, kaya wag mo kami pakitaan na kesyo yan ang desisyon ng eksperto, another MALI ka nanaman jan...

Wala akong sinabing maleta natanggap mo dahil sa may mga position lang sa gobyerno nakakatanggap non, sa mga 8080ng walang bilang sa Pinas na 500-1k lang siguro, ok na yon sakanila, basta may pambili lang at maipakain sa nagugutom nilang pamilya.

As a member in good standing of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and having had the privilege of serving as President of the IBP Cebu City Chapter, Deputy Governor for the Eastern Visayas Region, and National Director of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, I feel compelled to respectfully clarify an important institutional distinction regarding the recent statement issued by the IBP Board of Governors on the June 3, 2026 Senate quorum controversy.

The Board of Governors undoubtedly serves as the governing body of the IBP. However, those of us who have sat in leadership positions within the organization understand that the Board is not the collective voice of more than 70,000 Filipino lawyers on every contentious constitutional issue. It is our governing body. It is not our universal mouthpiece.

On matters of profound constitutional significance, particularly those involving competing interpretations of the Constitution and jurisprudence, it is important to recognize that the Board’s position does not automatically become the personal position of every member of the Bar.

More importantly, this particular statement was never subjected to consultation among the various Chapters, Regions, or the general membership. No referendum was conducted. No consensus was sought. No chapter resolutions were gathered. No nationwide legal discourse was undertaken prior to its issuance.

For that reason, while I respect the authority of the Board to E×ρréšš its institutional view, I respectfully disagree with the suggestion—whether E×ρréšš or implied—that the statement represents the unanimous or collective position of the entire Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

It does not represent mine.

After carefully reviewing the Constitution, the Senate Rules, and the jurisprudence being invoked to justify the June 3 proceedings, I remain unconvinced that a valid quorum existed.

Article VI, Section 16(2) of the Constitution is straightforward: a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business. In a Senate composed of twenty-four members, that majority is thirteen.

What is being advanced today is an interpretation that effectively reduced the Senate’s membership from twenty-four to twenty-two by treating the temporary absence or unavailability of Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Ronald dela Rosa as though their seats had somehow ceased to count for quorum purposes.

That proposition is deeply problematic.

Absence is not vacancy.

Detention is not expulsion.

Unavailability is not resignation.

The Constitution recognizes vacant seats. It does not recognize politically convenient arithmetic.

Likewise, I find the reliance on Avelino v. Cuenco misplaced.

The oft-cited case involved a Senate session that had already commenced with a valid quorum before a walkout occurred. The Supreme Court merely refused to allow a minority bloc to paralyze the institution by abandoning the session after proceedings had already begun.

That is a far cry from asserting that twelve senators may convene, constitute a quorum from the outset, declare leadership positions vacant, and reorganize the Senate.

Those are entirely different legal questions.

Equally significant is the fact that the 1987 Constitution now E×ρréššly requires the election of Senate officers by a majority vote of all the members of the Senate. This constitutional framework did not exist in the same form during the Avelino era.

For these reasons, it is my considered opinion that the constitutional requirement of quorum was not satisfied, that the actions undertaken during the June 3 proceedings are legally vulnerable, and that the matter deserves far more rigorous constitutional scrutiny than the public has thus far been led to believe.

Lawyers should never be afraid to disagree.

The strength of the legal profession has never been found in unanimity. It has always been found in the freedom to challenge prevailing interpretations, test legal theories against the Constitution, and follow the law wherever it leads.

And on this issue, I respectfully remain of the view that the Constitution has not yet been convincingly answered.

 

[Kumadas]

SOURCE: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Patunay na di lahat ng IBP members ay pabor sa desisyon ng governor ng IBP, kaya wag mo kami pakitaan na kesyo yan ang desisyon ng eksperto, another MALI ka nanaman jan...

Wala akong sinabing maleta natanggap mo dahil sa may mga position lang sa gobyerno nakakatanggap non, sa mga 8080ng walang bilang sa Pinas na 500-1k lang siguro, ok na yon sakanila, basta may pambili lang at maipakain sa nagugutom nilang pamilya.

SOURCE: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

wag niyo na kami láρágan na nagdesisyon na ang IDP prompt niyo, like I said sa isang thread mo "not because they agree to it, doesn't mean they are right" Akala ko ba may utak kayong mga kakampwet lakas niyo maka8080 sa mga thread, 500 pesos lang naman katapat ng dignidad niyo.

 

[Meawii]

SOURCE: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Patunay na di lahat ng IBP members ay pabor sa desisyon ng governor ng IBP, kaya wag mo kami pakitaan na kesyo yan ang desisyon ng eksperto, another MALI ka nanaman jan...

Any other source na salungat ang mga IBP members? kasi Majority sa kanila naniniwala naman kaya nag release sila ng statement regarding sa 12 quorum diba?

Di porket may nakita ka lang isang IBP member na salungat sa 12 quorum eh naniwala ka na agad.

Kung i-visit mo yung source ng binigay mo na yan You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., halatang puro DDS posts ehh kaya alam mong yung narrative nila ay puro Duterte and allies lang ehh.

SOURCE: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

isa pa tong page na may 16 posts and kakagawa lang ng fb page na member daw sya ng IBP, legit ba yan? may nakita ka lang post jan naniwala kana agad, at ano name nya kung IBP member sya?

Pakita ka naman ng ibang source na credible and reliable, hindi ka ba nagbabase sa news? (ayy kasi nga para sa inyo bayaran sila, kaya sa mga DDS vloggers and fb pages lang kayo nagbabase hehe.)

 

[Karliii]

new day new knowledge mga boss kopya..

 

[Kumadas]

Any other source na salungat ang mga IBP members? kasi Majority sa kanila naniniwala naman kaya nag release sila ng statement regarding sa 12 quorum diba?

Di porket may nakita ka lang isang IBP member na salungat sa 12 quorum eh naniwala ka na agad.

Kung i-visit mo yung source ng binigay mo na yan You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., halatang puro DDS posts ehh kaya alam mong yung narrative nila ay puro Duterte and allies lang ehh.


View attachment 4207649
isa pa tong page na may 16 posts and kakagawa lang ng fb page na member daw sya ng IBP, legit ba yan? may nakita ka lang post jan naniwala kana agad, at ano name nya kung IBP member sya?

Pakita ka naman ng ibang source na credible and reliable, hindi ka ba nagbabase sa news? (ayy kasi nga para sa inyo bayaran sila, kaya sa mga DDS vloggers and fb pages lang kayo nagbabase hehe.)

ayan ka nanaman anlala talaga. sabi mo kasi eksperto na IBP,nireplyan kita hindi lahat ng member ng IDP, tapos sasabihin mo nanaman DDS nagpost..anong logic ba gumagana sayo?

SOURCE: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

*kung di pa din yan sapat search mo nalang sa fb "IBP Vote" Tapos makikita mo don pagkadami daming Atty na di sumasangayon sa IBP post nila tas basahin mo na din dahilan nila, tapos tawagin mo silang 8080 dahil kakampwet ka, mas may alam kayong mga kakampwet e kahit na alam ko naman na troll ka lang, prompt lang nagpapagana sa argumento mo.

 

[Meawii]

ayan ka nanaman anlala talaga. sabi mo kasi eksperto na IBP,nireplyan kita hindi lahat ng member ng IDP, tapos sasabihin mo nanaman DDS nagpost..anong logic ba gumagana sayo?

View attachment 4207709
SOURCE: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

*kung di pa din yan sapat search mo nalang sa fb "IBP Vote" Tapos makikita mo don pagkadami daming Atty na di sumasangayon sa IBP post nila tas basahin mo na din dahilan nila, tapos tawagin mo silang 8080 dahil kakampwet ka, mas may alam kayong mga kakampwet e kahit na alam ko naman na troll ka lang, prompt lang nagpapagana sa argumento mo.

Eksperto ba yan ng IBP lawyers or lawyers ng mga Duterte and DDS??? HAHAHAH

So yung pagiging source mo nga ng Informations ay galing sa mga DDS lawyers?? pwede ka ba magbigay ng source na di galing sa DDS lawyers? kasi syempre automatic na hindi sila papabor

Mga source nyo lang ba mga DDS yung mga kapwa nyo DDS din? HAHAHAH!

 

[Kumadas]

View attachment 4207740
View attachment 4207741
Eksperto ba yan ng IBP lawyers or lawyers ng mga Duterte and DDS??? HAHAHAH

So yung pagiging source mo nga ng Informations ay galing sa mga DDS lawyers?? pwede ka ba magbigay ng source na di galing sa DDS lawyers? kasi syempre automatic na hindi sila papabor

Mga source nyo lang ba mga DDS yung mga kapwa nyo DDS din? HAHAHAH!

IBP member sila pre pag supporter ng Duterte DDS? anlala talaga

ito pa, isa pang atty: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

 

[Meawii]

IBP member sila pre pag supporter ng Duterte DDS? anlala talaga

ito pa, isa pang atty: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

IBP member nga, pero ano yan? IBP expert member ng mga DDS? HAHA! Malamang yung papanigan nila yung mga Duterte and allies lang kasi DDS sila.

Ano yang link? di naman ma open sheesh, wag kana maghanap kung another DDS lawyer lang naman yan.

 

[Meawii]

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Bakit di nalang kasi hintayin yung sasabihin ng mga lawyers, o mga eksperto sa batas natin? imbis na magbigay ng mga assumptions.

 

[BicycleHorse]

View attachment 4207580
SOURCE: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

wag niyo na kami láρágan na nagdesisyon na ang IDP prompt niyo, like I said sa isang thread mo "not because they agree to it, doesn't mean they are right" Akala ko ba may utak kayong mga kakampwet lakas niyo maka8080 sa mga thread, 500 pesos lang naman katapat ng dignidad niyo.

the IBP statement remains officially valid regardless of individual member disagreement. Under the IBP's structure and by-laws, the Board of Governors is the duly constituted authority empowered to issue official positions on behalf of the organization. A statement from the Board carries the institutional weight and legal identity of the IBP as a whole, even if rank-and-file lawyer-members personally hold contrary views. This is standard in any representative governance structure.

And still, no other Law Organization has released a statement that they do not agree with what happened in the Senate.

 

[vvictorr]

Diba meron ng case na citing na kapag unable to attend ung isang senator is di na muna kasali. Bato is nagtatago jinggoy is in prison so ung natitira is 22 and majority is 12.

SC should clarify this.

 

[BamJehu]

Bakit di ma gets to ng iba? ang dali-dali lang ehh.

24 senators sila, may kaso sila Bato (nagtatago) at Jinggoy (nakulong na) kaya 22 Senators nalang.

Do the Math:
24 - 2 = 22
22 ÷ 2 = 11
11 + 1 = 12
12 is 50% of 22

Kaya may quorum.

The Philippine Senate has 22 members now. A simple majority is 50% + 1, meaning 12 senators must be present to constitute a valid

50% ng 22 is 11 diba? plus 1 = 12 Quorum

Majority of each house ang naging botohan, Majority is 12 na.

"A Quorum is a majority of the members of the Senate."

If the Senate has 24 members:
Quorum = 24 ÷ 2 + 1 = 13

If the Senate has 22 members:
Quorum = 22 ÷ 2 + 1 = 12

Therefore:
24 senators → Quorum = 13
22 senators → Quorum = 12

Tsaka anong 1986 Constitution pinagsasabi mo? wala naman yun doon. Nag base sila sa 1949 Supreme Court landmark case Avelino v. Cuenco.

nakakatawa talaga ang pianapakalat ng mga DDH, haha

the IBP statement remains officially valid regardless of individual member disagreement. Under the IBP's structure and by-laws, the Board of Governors is the duly constituted authority empowered to issue official positions on behalf of the organization. A statement from the Board carries the institutional weight and legal identity of the IBP as a whole, even if rank-and-file lawyer-members personally hold contrary views. This is standard in any representative governance structure.

And still, no other Law Organization has released a statement that they do not agree with what happened in the Senate.

View attachment 4207904

lol so funny hahahahaha , but in the constitution, and senate rules gatchalian is a ilegal senate pro tempore, 13 is 13, cases and hiding doesnt remove a senator as a member of senate very easy to understand

 

[Meawii]

lol so funny hahahahaha , but in the constitution, and senate rules gatchalian is a ilegal senate pro tempore, 13 is 13, cases and hiding doesnt remove a senator as a member of senate very easy to understand

Ang funny din kasi hindi naman kinuwestiyon ito ng Supreme court o ng lahat ng mambabatas. Kasi kung may mali o kung îllégâl yan hindi yan papahintulutan lol! ilang araw na nakalipas eh. In denial parin mga DDS

 

[KingSemreh]

Kahit ako medyo naguguluhan din talaga, pero hayaan nalang natin sa mga eksperto na nagsabi, kung îllégâl naman talaga yun kukuwestiyonin ng batas yun pero ayon sa mga experto ito sabi nila which is valid naman daw yun:
View attachment 4207429
View attachment 4207430

This is not applicable. Hence the majority members of IBP was not consulted. If consulted, marahil hindi na ito ma out sa public. According sa nakakarami na members ng IBP, this is invalid since hindi dumaan sa consultation sa buong member.