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!

 

[Meawii]

Boss di mo ata alam na officers lng mostly ang nagbobotohan jan sa IBP, meaning di alam ng lahat ng members. San mo ba nakuha yan na majority sa kanila naniniwala?

Officers ba yung nagbobotohan sa IBP??? Mga lawyers sila. Ikaw san mo nakuha yang officers? lmao.

IBP agrees June 3 Senate quorum 'lawful' and 'valid'

Mahirap ba intindihan yan?? malamang lahat ng IBP members agrees na lawful and valid yung quorum na yun, mag r-release ba sila ng statement kung halos sa kanila ay hindi pabor sa quorum na yun???? hay nako.

 

[d4rkn3ss]

Officers ba yung nagbobotohan sa IBP??? Mga lawyers sila. Ikaw san mo nakuha yang officers? lmao.

IBP agrees June 3 Senate quorum 'lawful' and 'valid'

Mahirap ba intindihan yan?? malamang lahat ng IBP members agrees na lawful and valid yung quorum na yun, mag r-release ba sila ng statement kung halos sa kanila ay hindi pabor sa quorum na yun???? hay nako.

Ang ***** naman nito kausap, lawyers nga yan sila pero may mga officers ang IBP national pati local chapters. Hay nako, ayan tlga ang hirap sa mga ᑕᕼᗩTGᑭT at facebook law university graduate eh magmamarunong pa. May pa lmao ka pa talaga

-

Hahahahaha WTF san mo naman nakuha yan? Board of Governors ng IBP galing yang statement na yan at hindi yan pinagbotohan ng lahat ng members. Mag aral ka pa pra d ka nagiging katawa2 boss, mas may alam ka pa sa mga nag aaral ng batas eh. Tanong ko lang graduate ka ba ng kung anong university sa law? Or facebook, ᑕᕼᗩTGᑭT or google university ka lng? Kasi kung ganun eh di tlga tayo magkakaintindihan, pati Board of Governors at officers ng IBP d mo alam eh, sasabihin mo pa mga lawyers sila, eh lawyers naman tlga lahat ng nanjan pwera nlang sa staffs

 

[d4rkn3ss]

Pati statement ng IBP na non-bearing ginagawa mong proof, jan pa lng para ka ng engot eh Siguro pati statement ng malacañang isasali mo na din sa next comment mo

 

[Meawii]

Ang ***** naman nito kausap, lawyers nga yan sila pero may mga officers ang IBP national pati local chapters. Hay nako, ayan tlga ang hirap sa mga ᑕᕼᗩTGᑭT at facebook law university graduate eh magmamarunong pa. May pa lmao ka pa talaga

-

Hahahahaha WTF san mo naman nakuha yan? Board of Governors ng IBP galing yang statement na yan at hindi yan pinagbotohan ng lahat ng members. Mag aral ka pa pra d ka nagiging katawa2 boss, mas may alam ka pa sa mga nag aaral ng batas eh. Tanong ko lang graduate ka ba ng kung anong university sa law? Or facebook, ᑕᕼᗩTGᑭT or google university ka lng? Kasi kung ganun eh di tlga tayo magkakaintindihan, pati Board of Governors at officers ng IBP d mo alam eh, sasabihin mo pa mga lawyers sila, eh lawyers naman tlga lahat ng nanjan pwera nlang sa staffs

Pati statement ng IBP na non-bearing ginagawa mong proof, jan pa lng para ka ng engot eh Siguro pati statement ng malacañang isasali mo na din sa next comment mo

Okay I agree sa ibang mga sinabi mo, tama ikaw, my bad. mali ako sa ibang part. Board of Governors yung nagbotohan, hindi lahat ng IBP lawyer members.

Hindi ba abogado/attorneys din yung mga Board of Governors ng IBP? official leaders sila na may authority magsalita on behalf of whole IBP, sila yung may kakayahan maglabas ng statement on behalf of IBP

Kung sinasabi mong walang kwenta yang statement ng IBP (Board of Governors) bakit halos lahat ng legal experts, majority ng lawyers, mga dating senate president na si Drilon and Pimentel is uma-agree sa opinion ng IBP??

Binase kasi yung 12 quorum na yun kagaya nung nangyari sa 1949 Avelino vs Cuenco ng Supreme Court.

Wala kang makikitang balita o majority ng laywers na nagsasabing îllégâl yan, maliban na lang sa mga post ng mga DDS at mga mga DDS vloggers sa facebook.. tsaka malamang sa malaman ayan yung mga source mo


Sobrang hype mo naman agad at napaka happy, wala pa namang napapatunayan na îllégâl yung ginawa nung 12 senators

.

 

[BicycleHorse]

Mas lalo na sguro yung LP na 20 years na wala man lng msyadong improvement bwesit talamak pa droga dati, nakakaurat, napaboto pa ko kay Noynoy dati puro games lng naman sa palasyo ampota. Si Cory na housewife iwan ko ba bat naging presidente, dun nagstart magkaleche2 eh pati meralco binenta ulit sa Lopez.

Again, pare-parehas lang silang may baho. Wag mo lang isisi sa iisang partido or coalition.

 

[d4rkn3ss]

Okay I agree sa ibang mga sinabi mo, tama ikaw, my bad. mali ako sa ibang part. Board of Governors yung nagbotohan, hindi lahat ng IBP lawyer members.

View attachment 4212937

Hindi ba abogado/attorneys din yung mga Board of Governors ng IBP? official leaders sila na may authority magsalita on behalf of whole IBP, sila yung may kakayahan maglabas ng statement on behalf of IBP

Kung sinasabi mong walang kwenta yang statement ng IBP (Board of Governors) bakit halos lahat ng legal experts, majority ng lawyers, mga dating senate president na si Drilon and Pimentel is uma-agree sa opinion ng IBP??

Binase kasi yung 12 quorum na yun kagaya nung nangyari sa 1949 Avelino vs Cuenco ng Supreme Court.

Wala kang makikitang balita o majority ng laywers na nagsasabing îllégâl yan, maliban na lang sa mga post ng mga DDS at mga mga DDS vloggers sa facebook.. tsaka malamang sa malaman ayan yung mga source mo


Sobrang hype mo naman agad at napaka happy, wala pa namang napapatunayan na îllégâl yung ginawa nung 12 senators

View attachment 4212956
.
View attachment 4212957

eh hindi naman yan yung sinabi mo, nahuli ka na nga eh, nung sinabi kong officers sabi mo lawyers sila dba ? Nagpapalusot ka pa eh. Ang dami mong kinuquote, mali2 nmn, 1987 na ang constitution ngayon at yang ang supreme law of the land. Mag hintsy ka magdecision ang SC d yung panay quote ka wala ka nmn idea sa pinagququote mo. Malamang mag aagree tlga yan ksi nsa isang partido sila eh, khit pa ilang kalokohan yang pinagququote mo SC prin ang may final say, lahat ng abogado alam yan! Wala or d ka lng naresearch? Kasi the other day ko pa nakita na mdami mga lawyers nagdisagree eh. Ito oh

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.





Ang dami pa nyan d mo lng tlga makikita kasi biased ka, kahit anong paliwanag sayo na SC ang may huling desisyon for sure d mo mtatanggap.

 

[d4rkn3ss]

Ang mas mabuti pa na gawin mo boss is maghintay kaysa magspread ng ganyan, inuuto lang kayo ng camp nyo eh, kung magdedesisyon ang SC na valid edi sige, pero nasa kanila pa din ang final say. Nakakaurat lng makita na madami pa din nagpapauto sa mga ganyang style na puro papogi sa social media at news, mind conditioning lagi sa mga tao.

 

[Meawii]

eh hindi naman yan yung sinabi mo, nahuli ka na nga eh, nung sinabi kong officers sabi mo lawyers sila dba ? Nagpapalusot ka pa eh.

My bad, mali nga ako sa part na yan. Pero lawyers/attorneys naman lahat ng Board of Governors ahh?. they speak and release statement on behalf of IBP members so anong mali dun?

• They act as the primary liaison between the Supreme Court, the broader legal community, and the general public, pushing for judicial reforms and legal aid programs.
• They act as the primary liaison between the Supreme Court, the broader legal community, and the general public, pushing for judicial reforms and legal aid programs.

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

​

Ang dami mong kinuquote, mali2 nmn, 1987 na ang constitution ngayon at yang ang supreme law of the land.

Nasa 1987 Constitution nga yan, pero binase ng 12 senators dun sa Avelino vs. Cuenco. Ako pa sinabihan mong mali² eh nasa news yan.

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.

lahat ng abogado alam yan! Wala or d ka lng naresearch? Kasi the other day ko pa nakita na mdami mga lawyers nagdisagree eh. Ito oh

Nakakatawa na sinabi mong lahat ng lawyers disagree, eh kung lahat or madaming mga lawyers ang disagree edi sana tinawag na yang îllégâl pero may nakikita ka ba? ilang araw na nakalipas ehh. kung mali yung 12 quorum na yun, kukwestyunin yun agad ng buong lawyers or SC or mga experto sa batas pero diba wala? yung nakikita mo lang mga DDS lawyers sa FB kasi mga DDS lang naman nag d-disagree dito kasi source mo mga DDS vlogger page sa FB

Mag hintsy ka magdecision ang SC d yung panay quote ka wala ka nmn idea sa pinagququote mo. Malamang mag aagree tlga yan ksi nsa isang partido sila eh, khit pa ilang kalokohan yang pinagququote mo SC prin ang may final say, lahat ng abogado alam yan! Wala or d ka lng naresearch? Kasi the other day ko pa nakita na mdami mga lawyers nagdisagree eh. Ito oh

Ang mas mabuti pa na gawin mo boss is maghintay kaysa magspread ng ganyan, inuuto lang kayo ng camp nyo eh, kung magdedesisyon ang SC na valid edi sige, pero nasa kanila pa din ang final say. Nakakaurat lng makita na madami pa din nagpapauto sa mga ganyang style na puro papogi sa social media at news, mind conditioning lagi sa mga tao.

Maghintay sa desisyon ng SC pero pinu-push mo yung narrative mong invalid yung 12 senator's quorum? maghintay ba yung tawag jan? nakakatawa na sabihan mo kong biased while clearly you're being a DDS? HAHA.

Nakakatawa din na sabihan mong mind conditioning yung sa mga news and pa-pogi lang pero bumabatay lang naman sila sa batas, akala mo naman basta² lang naglalabas ng Informations yung mga news outlets natin. Mas babase pa ako sa news ehh kesa sa mga DDS pages na ginagawa nyong credible without fact checking first.

 

[d4rkn3ss]

Ang hirap mo paliwanagan, mag aral ka muna ng batas, wala naman ako sinabi ma lahat ng lawyers disagree, pati contention ko di mo magets ah, may sinabi ba akong îllégâl, ang sabi ko maghintay ka ng decision ng SC kasi kahit anong ngaw2 mo jan or kung sino pa yang kinuquote mo, walang kwenta yan unless nagdecision ang Supreme Court, d mo parin magets? Ako na naaawa sayo kung ganun. Ang bano mo tlga, sinabihan ka lng na maraming nagdisagree sasabihan mo pa ko na pinupush ko, san banda? Ang sabi ko nga sa comment ko kanina na "kung anong decision ng SC, kung valid edi sgi". Impossibleng d mo nabasa yun. Ha? San banda mo nakita na nagquote ako ng vloggers? Eh news naman yung kinuquote ko kanina at statement mismo ng isang abogado. Gumagawa ka na naman ng sarili mong kwento, pinsan mo siguro si claire no?

 

[d4rkn3ss]

Wala naman mali na lawyers sila, ang mali eh nung sinabi kong officers ang nagbotohan dun, akala mo yung officers na mga yun eh hindi sila lawyer Ayun lang yung mali dun, wala ka alam sa IBP pero quote ka ng quote

 

[d4rkn3ss]

San ba yung sinasabi mo na pinupush ko? At ako pa tlga hindi nagbabase sa batas? Constitution nga kinuquote ko eh while ikaw yung Avelino case na 1935 constitution pa. Kaya nga maghintay sa SC dba? Bakit parang ayaw mo? Feeling mo ba di valid dahil ganun? Oh sya, sayang lng oras ko sayo, wala ka naman background pala sa law nagmamagaling ka pa.

 

[Meawii]

Ang hirap mo paliwanagan, mag aral ka muna ng batas, wala naman ako sinabi ma lahat ng lawyers disagree, pati contention ko di mo magets ah, may sinabi ba akong îllégâl, ang sabi ko maghintay ka ng decision ng SC kasi kahit anong ngaw2 mo jan or kung sino pa yang kinuquote mo, walang kwenta yan unless nagdecision ang Supreme Court, d mo parin magets? Ako na naaawa sayo kung ganun. Ang bano mo tlga, sinabihan ka lng na maraming nagdisagree sasabihan mo pa ko na pinupush ko, san banda? Ang sabi ko nga sa comment ko kanina na "kung anong decision ng SC, kung valid edi sgi". Impossibleng d mo nabasa yun. Ha? San banda mo nakita na nagquote ako ng vloggers? Eh news naman yung kinuquote ko kanina at statement mismo ng isang abogado. Gumagawa ka na naman ng sarili mong kwento, pinsan mo siguro si claire no?

Ako pa tinawag mong mag aral ng batas, akala mo naman lawyer ka or anything na may alam sa batas talaga.

Ang ibig kong sabihin jan, kung totoong hinihintay mo yung decision ng Korte hindi mo ipupush yung narrative mong 13 senators ang need ng quorum at hindi 12.. diba ayun yung punto mo?? tsaka wala pa naman talagang statement ng Supreme Court pero kung may mali sa 12 quorum aaksyunan yan agad ng supreme court or majority of law experts or lawyers ang pipigil jan, pero may narinig ka ba? wala diba?

Calling me "bano and na aawa" napaka low naman ng arguments mo, debateng low quality.

Wala naman mali na lawyers sila, ang mali eh nung sinabi kong officers ang nagbotohan dun, akala mo yung officers na mga yun eh hindi sila lawyer Ayun lang yung mali dun, wala ka alam sa IBP pero quote ka ng quote

Okay mali ko? happy ka, okay na??. pero masyado mo namang minamaliit yung mga Board of Governors ng IBP na akala mo naman ay mga mababang nilalang. Mas mataas pa posisyon nila sa IBP lawyer members, sila yung nag l-lead ng organization. nag r-release ng statement on behalf of IBP member as a whole (paulit ulit). Di ka naniniwala sa IBP at sa News na tinatawag mong pampapogi lang pero andaling nyong mauto ng mga DDS Facebook Vloggers.

San ba yung sinasabi mo na pinupush ko? At ako pa tlga hindi nagbabase sa batas? Constitution nga kinuquote ko eh while ikaw yung Avelino case na 1935 constitution pa. Kaya nga maghintay sa SC dba? Bakit parang ayaw mo? Feeling mo ba di valid dahil ganun? Oh sya, sayang lng oras ko sayo, wala ka naman background pala sa law nagmamagaling ka pa.

1935 & 1949 yung Avelino vs Cuenco case nga nagbase yung minority senators dati, qinuote mo yung constitution na 1987 tama naman, pero yung pag decice ng 12quorum senators ay binase dun sa avelino vs cuenco case.

Edi maghintay sa Supreme Court para maniwala ka talaga at mawala yung pagiging in denial state nyong mga DDS. pag may release yung SC at mali ako tatanggapin ko yung pagkakamali ko, pero pag tama ako? tatawa ako sa gilid jk.

Siguro pag umagree na lawful and valid yung Supreme Court sasabihin nyong mga DDS nabayaran or nabigyan ng malita, ano pang denial scripts kaya yung sasabihin nyo?

Sayang pa oras mo sakin huh? pero nag r-reply ka Mr. Marunong at may background sa law? ang galing mo pala.

 

[KingSemreh]

Can 12 Out of 24 Really Be Called a Majority?​

Ito na ang sagot sa tanong mo:
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

 

[Meawii]

Can 12 Out of 24 Really Be Called a Majority?​

Ito na ang sagot sa tanong mo:
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

sabi na lalabas ito eh HAHAHAH dismissed petition lang yan, nag hain lang ng petition si Barry Tayam and ni dismiss yun ng Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court did not rule that 12 senators constitute a valid quorum. It simply dismissed the case because the petitioner failed to show that he was personally affected by the issue. As a result, the Court did not decide whether the June 3 Senate session had a valid quorum or not.

The Supreme Court's message was basically: "You are not the proper person to bring this case, so we won't decide the issue."

 

[KingSemreh]

sabi na lalabas ito eh HAHAHAH dismissed petition lang yan, nag hain lang ng petition si Barry Tayam and ni dismiss yun ng Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court did not rule that 12 senators constitute a valid quorum. It simply dismissed the case because the petitioner failed to show that he was personally affected by the issue. As a result, the Court did not decide whether the June 3 Senate session had a valid quorum or not.

The Supreme Court's message was basically: "You are not the proper person to bring this case, so we won't decide the issue."

So, what are you trying to say for that 12 Out of 24 Really Be Called a Majority with your IBP public statement?

Argument A with article support vs Argument B with practical explanation?

Argument A: The Strict Constitutionalist View (The "No Quorum" Camp)
Led by Senator Alan Peter Cayetano and Senator Loren Legarda, this side argues that the June 3, 2026, session was completely îllégâl. [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.]

• The Rules: Article VI, Section 16(1) of the 1987 Constitution states that the Senate must elect its officers by a "majority vote of all its respective Members." [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.]
• The Math: The full membership of the Senate is fixed at 24. No seats have been declared legally vacant. Therefore, any session with only 12 senators present lacks a quorum, and any vote with only 12 members cannot legally elect a Senate President. [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., 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.]

Argument B: The Pragmatic View (The "12 is Enough" Camp)
Led by Senator Sherwin Gatchalian and backed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), this side argues that the rules must bend to prevent government paralysis. [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., You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.]

• The Adjustment: They argue that because two senators are unreachable (one jailed, one in hiding), the "working" size of the Senate is actually 22.
• The Math: The majority of 22 is 12.

 

[Meawii]

So, what are you trying to say for that 12 Out of 24 Really Be Called a Majority with your IBP public statement?

Argument A with article support vs Argument B with practical explanation?

Argument A: The Strict Constitutionalist View (The "No Quorum" Camp)
Led by Senator Alan Peter Cayetano and Senator Loren Legarda, this side argues that the June 3, 2026, session was completely îllégâl. [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.]

• The Rules: Article VI, Section 16(1) of the 1987 Constitution states that the Senate must elect its officers by a "majority vote of all its respective Members." [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.]
• The Math: The full membership of the Senate is fixed at 24. No seats have been declared legally vacant. Therefore, any session with only 12 senators present lacks a quorum, and any vote with only 12 members cannot legally elect a Senate President. [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., 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.]

Argument B: The Pragmatic View (The "12 is Enough" Camp)
Led by Senator Sherwin Gatchalian and backed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), this side argues that the rules must bend to prevent government paralysis. [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., You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.]

• The Adjustment: They argue that because two senators are unreachable (one jailed, one in hiding), the "working" size of the Senate is actually 22.
• The Math: The majority of 22 is 12.

Jusko nag AI pa talaga

 

[KingSemreh]

Jusko nag AI pa talaga

Parang sinasabi mo nanaman na hindi ka nag e AI, ano ba talaga ahh? Ante Kler ka talaga. Hahaha

 

[Meawii]

Parang sinasabi mo nanaman na hindi ka nag e AI, ano ba talaga ahh? Ante Kler ka talaga. Hahaha

okay ka lang ?

 

[KingSemreh]

okay ka lang ?

Parang sinasabi mo nanaman na hindi ka nag e AI, ano ba talaga ahh? Ante Kler ka talaga. Hahaha

Yes naman. Okay ako.

Ikaw kaya jan? Nalilito ka na sa sagot mo ahh.

 

[Meawii]

Yes naman. Okay ako.

Ikaw kaya jan? Nalilito ka na sa sagot mo ahh.

Patawa, ako pa sinabihan ng nagamit ng AI. halos lahat ng answer mo yung AI

Sana ginagamit mo yung AI ng maayos sa pag fact check or research noh?