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!

 

[Capt_Chelo]

Ano 50% ng 22? Open your Calculator

Hello my understanding is 50% is technically a tie becos other team as well have 50%, so it should be 50.1% to count as a majority no? Essentially 24 ÷ 2 = 12 pero in this case 12.1 should count as the greater majority and becos you dont have a .1 person, so its rounded up to the next nearest whole which is 13.

And because all these boils down to technicality right? And as the law states, so to avoid ambiguity, rules should be read "as is where is" and to refer to the supreme law of the land/constituion which is 1987 consti, not 1935 consti nor 1949 SC ruling becos as how I understand it 1987 consti supersedes both rulings.

Right? Hehe just my two cents. Im no lawyer, so pls enlighten me.

 

[Meawii]

Hello my understanding is 50% is technically a tie becos other team as well have 50%, so it should be 50.1% to count as a majority no? Essentially 24 ÷ 2 = 12 pero in this case 12.1 should count as the greater majority and becos you dont have a .1 person, so its rounded up to the next nearest whole which is 13.

And because all these boils down to technicality right? And as the law states, so to avoid ambiguity, rules should be read "as is where is" and to refer to the supreme law of the land/constituion which is 1987 consti, not 1935 consti nor 1949 SC ruling becos as how I understand it 1987 consti supersedes both rulings.

Right? Hehe just my two cents. Im no lawyer, so pls enlighten me.

first saan nanggaling yung 12.1? ba't may sobrang .1?, yes I guess kailangan ng Majority ng 50% up para may quorum

12.1 round up to 13? no it stays as 12.

24 senators minus Bato (Fugitive) & Jinggoy (Jailed) = 22 Senators

​

11 - Team Hontiveros
11 - Team Cayetano
= 22 senators

22÷2 = 11
11+1 = 12 (chiz escudero included)

total: 12 Team Hontiveros and 10 team Cayetano

so who's the majority now? since 12 is greater than 10?

I hope you get it, pero paki tingnan narin ito https://phcorner.org/threads/2545274/ since nangyari na ang 12 quorum before, and IBP says it's lawful and valid.

 

[Capt_Chelo]

first saan nanggaling yung 12.1? ba't may sobrang .1?, yes I guess kailangan ng Majority ng 50% up para may quorum

View attachment 4216510
12.1 round up to 13? no it stays as 12.

24 senators minus Bato (Fugitive) & Jinggoy (Jailed) = 22 Senators

​

11 - Team Hontiveros
11 - Team Cayetano
= 22 senators

22÷2 = 11
11+1 = 12 (chiz escudero included)

total: 12 Team Hontiveros and 10 team Cayetano

so who's the majority now? since 12 is greater than 10?

I hope you get it, pero paki tingnan narin ito https://phcorner.org/threads/2545274/ since nangyari na ang 12 quorum before, and IBP says it's lawful and valid.

Yes, considering the ejk fugitive and the yellow wearing PDL. What I meant was constitution says All Members of Senate, not "those who are present" so total count as I understand is 24, half is 12 so to be considered a majority don't you need more than 12? Thats what got me a little confused.

No offense to lawyers but the statement of the IBP, to me, in my opinion bears no weight whatsoever, they're not judges nor a court, they hold no judicial power.

What I'm also confused is why people are referring to the previous SC ruling / Avelino v. Cuenco doctrine, the former follows the 1935 constitution and now we follow the 1987 constitution which is different because it strictly defines a majority as all members regardless of their availability.

Doesn't the Avelino v. Cuenco doctrine have a limited applicability? Technically, it can be applied to similar cases dating before the 1987 Constituion. If not, then by referring to the 1949 SC ruling which follows the 1935 constitution, aren't people essentially agreeing and saying that 1935 constitution is far superior and supersedes the 1987 constitution and that our current constitution bears no weight?

Please shed light to this confusing thought because people are essentially going backwards as I've understood. Thanks

 

[Meawii]

Yes, considering the ejk fugitive and the yellow wearing PDL. What I meant was constitution says All Members of Senate, not "those who are present" so total count as I understand is 24, half is 12 so to be considered a majority don't you need more than 12? Thats what got me a little confused.

No offense to lawyers but the statement of the IBP, to me, in my opinion bears no weight whatsoever, they're not judges nor a court, they hold no judicial power.

What I'm also confused is why people are referring to the previous SC ruling / Avelino v. Cuenco doctrine, the former follows the 1935 constitution and now we follow the 1987 constitution which is different because it strictly defines a majority as all members regardless of their availability.

Doesn't the Avelino v. Cuenco doctrine have a limited applicability? Technically, it can be applied to similar cases dating before the 1987 Constituion. If not, then by referring to the 1949 SC ruling which follows the 1935 constitution, aren't people essentially agreeing and saying that 1935 constitution is far superior and supersedes the 1987 constitution and that our current constitution bears no weight?

Please shed light to this confusing thought because people are essentially going backwards as I've understood. Thanks

I have answered this similar questions many times sa thread na 'to and I'm tired of answering it na. Maybe you could get some time to back read?

As I've said, 12 quorum happens before (many times) if it has happened before, why are we still questioning it? if there's wrong, a Supreme Court or majority of lawyers will question it from the start if it's îllégâl or whatsoever. It's been a days, and I heard nothing that this was îllégâl aside from DDS troops.

 

[Capt_Chelo]

I have answered this similar questions many times sa thread na 'to and I'm tired of answering it na. Maybe you could get some time to back read?

As I've said, 12 quorum happens before (many times) if it has happened before, why are we still questioning it? if there's wrong, a Supreme Court or majority of lawyers will question it from the start if it's îllégâl or whatsoever. It's been a days, and I heard nothing that this was îllégâl aside from DDS troops.

True thats also confusing, people keep saying its îllégâl and other side its legal, whether it is or not, either of them should file suit, to make it formal, to clarify things with the higher court which is which.

Might look for and dig up your replies on this thread some time. Thanks

 

[Meawii]

True thats also confusing, people keep saying its îllégâl and other side its legal, whether it is or not, either of them should file suit, to make it formal, to clarify things with the higher court which is which.

Might look for and dig up your replies on this thread some time. Thanks

I agree, it was indeed confusing. kahit ako medyo naguguluhan din talaga, let's just see how and what will happen.

My pleasure talking with you, it was so nice hehe. Ganitong Healthy debate sana haha