Is Alan Peter Cayetano ousted or not? The legal drama behind his Senate presidency, explained

Senator Ping Lacson, a member of the bloc, strongly defended the legality of the move, points out that the real majority was on their side.

"Ang realidad, labindalawa kami, sampu sila, eh ano yung majority? At this is not without legal basis at saka precedent. Dahil 'yung Avelino v. Cuenco, maliwanag. Dalawampu't dalawa kami ngayon dahil nga 'yung dalawa indisposed," Lacson told 24 Oras, referring to Senator Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa, who is currently in hiding, and Senator Jinggoy Estrada, who has been arrested.

"Sinasabi doon, outside the coercive power of the Senate at hindi macocompel ang kanilang attendance. 'Yun ang operative words doon sa ruling na 'yun eh," he continued. 

Lacson revealed that the group struck as soon as they realized they had the numbers.

"Nung nalaman naming mag-aattend ng session si Sen. Chiz Escudero, tinawag namin 'yung aming mga legal staff at aming diniscuss kung ano 'yung pwede mangyari. At 'yan nga 'yung nangyari," he said. "Nagre-organize kami. Mayroong motion to declare all positions vacant including that of the Senate President. But we could not yet elect a new Senate President kasi sa Constitution, maliwanag na labing tatlo ang billing na kailangan."

However, Cayetano earlier rejected that interpretation, describing the move as an "illegal coup d’etat" and maintaining that he remains the chamber's rightful leader. He argued that the position can only be filled in these instances: resignation, removal, death, or absolute incapacity.

"Hindi po tayo nag reresign... hindi po nila ako na alis... buhay pa naman po siguro ako. Hindi po AI ito, hindi po AI ang kumakausap sainyo... nakapagsalita po ako. So wala pong ground para magkaroon ng active president," he said.

The 'gray area'

At the center of the dispute is the 1949 Supreme Court case Avelino v. Cuenco. In that case, then-Senate President Jose Avelino walked out of a session with his allies to block an investigation against him. The remaining senators continued the session, declared the presidency vacant, and installed Mariano Jesus Cuenco as acting leader. Avelino challenged the move, arguing there was no valid quorum, but the Supreme Court ultimately upheld Cuenco’s election.

Experts say the current situation exposes a legal gray area. Constitutional lawyer Michael Tiu explained that while the Constitution states a Senate President must be elected by a majority of all members, declaring a seat vacant relies on a different mechanism.

"The Constitution in Art 16(1) says election of SP is by a majority vote of all members, so this is 13 out of 24. While declaring vacant is not election, it does circumvent that rule by unseating the SP that had been elected by the majority of all the members at one point," Tiu explained to PhilSTAR L!fe. "So having an acting SP by virtue of declaring the SP vacant indirectly does something that the Constitution says should be done a certain way."

In plain terms, the strategy allows a group of senators to strip a sitting Senate President of power without actually holding the official majority vote required to elect a new one.

To declare all leadership positions vacant, Tiu stated that "each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary," according to the constitution. 

"Since Avelino says the House may mean a small[er] number than the absolute majority, then whatever the majority does at any point in time will control. So if they decide to declare positions other than the Senate Presidency vacant, they can do that," he said.

Tiu noted that while the Senate has the power to shape its internal rules, the stakes are high.

"I hesitate to say that this is absolute because there is an express constitutional requirement for SP, and especially because the SP is in the line of succession to the Presidency in Sec 8, Art VII," he added.

He stressed that there is still "vulnerability" regarding whether the bloc's actions fully complied with internal Senate rules, as the 1949 Avelino case primarily settled rules on quorum, not the explicit election requirements for a Senate President.

"Avelino does not settle the question of election requirements for SP. It had pronouncements on quorum," he said. "As long as the Avelino rule holds that the base for computing the number for quorum is who is within the coercive power of the Senate, then it holds."

Why its likely to end in a 'judicial review'

Fellow constitutional lawyer Victoria Loanzon meanwhile noted how in the Avelino v. Cuenco case, the SC ruled that since one senator cannot be physically present in the plenary, 23 was considered the number of senators who can validly cast votes to elect a new Senate President. 

She pointed to a similar shakeup in 2015 under former Senate president Franklin Drilon. During that time, the Senate was able to reach a quorum with only 12 members, as four senators were in abroad and three were arrested. She said that this "paved the way for electing new heads of Senate Committees." 

However, because the law remains unsettled on this specific matter, Loanzon noted that the final decision will likely come down to a judicial review.

"Being the injured party, Alan Cayetano can raise the question before the SC," she told L!fe.

Loanzon further stated that the SC may still be asked to step in to challenge the actions in Wednesday's proceedings.