Former Senate President Franklin Drilon has maintained that the decision of 12 senators to declare Senate leadership positions vacant and reorganize the chamber was legally valid, citing both jurisprudence and his own rulings during his tenure as Senate chief.
In a television interview, Drilon referenced the Supreme Court case Avelino v. Cuenco, saying that quorum should be based on senators who are capable of performing their duties and are within the Senate’s jurisdiction, rather than the chamber’s full 24-member composition.
“Yung bilang po kung ilan ang Senador ay dapat doon lamang sa mga Senador na sakop ng jurisdiction ng Senado. Ibig sabihin wala sa labas, ibig sabihin pwedeng gampanan ang trabaho bilang Senador.”
He recalled a similar situation in March 2015 when he was serving as Senate President. At the time, several senators were either detained or outside the country, reducing the number of members considered available to participate in Senate proceedings.
“Noong panahon ko noong March 2015, doon sa 24 na senador, mayroong 4 na nasa labas ng bansa at mayroong 3 nasa kulungan. Kaya ang bilang ng kabuoan ng Senado ay 17 senador lamang. At ang ruling ko noon ay labing dalawa ay quorum na. Ganun din ang nangyayari ngayon.”
Using the same interpretation, Drilon said only 22 senators are currently available to discharge their duties, making 12 votes enough to constitute a majority and conduct Senate business.
He argued that once a quorum exists, senators have the authority to declare leadership positions vacant, including the office of the Senate president.
“Dahilan doon 22 ang nandoon, mayroon po silang quorum at mayroong kapangyarihan na i-declare na vacant ang lahat ng posisyon pati yung Senate President.”
However, Drilon clarified that while 12 votes may be sufficient to remove a sitting Senate president, the election of a permanent replacement requires the support of at least 13 senators.
“Ang pagka-pangulo ng Senado ay dapat ihalal ng 13 senador, si Sen. Win Gatchalian ay acting Senate President lamang.”
Despite his legal defense of the move, Drilon acknowledged that any challenge to the Senate reorganization would ultimately have to be settled by the Supreme Court.