Mikel Rama rebuts IBP stand, says Senate quorum ‘cuts voters out’
CEBU CITY, Philippines — Cebu City Councilor and lawyer Mikel Rama has broken with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) over its defense of the controversial Senate leadership reorganization, arguing that parliamentary rules should “protect the electorate’s voice rather than justify the exclusion” of elected officials from quorum computations.
In a statement released on Friday, Rama, an IBP member and son of former Cebu City Mayor Michael “Mike” Rama, challenged the IBP Board of Governors’ legal interpretation that allowed the Senate to treat its working membership as 22 instead of 24, paving the way for a 12-member quorum.
“As a member of the IBP, I respectfully disagree with the Board of Governors’ recent legal interpretation supporting a reduced Senate quorum of 22 members,” Rama said.
READ: Tulfo to Legarda, Villanueva: Help restore Senate quorum
“A Senate seat and the legislative vote it carries does not belong to the sitting senator. It belongs to the electorate.”
Rama’s statement adds another Cebu voice to the debate over the legality of the June 3 Senate session, where 12 senators declared a quorum, reorganized the chamber’s leadership, and installed Senator Sherwin Gatchalian as Senate President Pro Tempore.
READ: Rama, Cebu Duterte allies brand Senate shakeup ‘illegal, immoral’
The controversy has split legal and political circles, with supporters arguing that the reorganization followed existing jurisprudence, while critics insist the Constitution requires a majority of the Senate’s full 24-member composition.
‘Disenfranchises millions’
Rama anchored his argument on constitutional principles rather than procedural practicality.
READ: Escudero on plenary appearance: ‘I am taking a stand for the Senate’
He stressed that sovereignty resides in the people and that public office remains a public trust under the 1987 Constitution.
According to him, reducing the Senate’s working base from 24 to 22 members does more than exclude two senators from the quorum count.
“Artificially shrinking the Senate’s working base to manufacture a 12-vote majority does not only sideline two politicians, but it also disenfranchises millions of voters,” he said.
Rama further argued that democratic institutions derive stability from respecting the full electoral mandate rather than altering numerical requirements through procedural interpretations.
“Institutional stability relies on respecting the full electoral outcome, not using procedural shortcuts to alter the chamber’s math,” he said.
“A resilient institution should not use legal gray areas to silence an electoral mandate, but rather it should seek every means to preserve it.”
For Rama, the issue extends beyond a dispute over parliamentary procedure and reaches the core of democratic representation.
“Parliamentary rules exist to protect the people’s voice, not to justify exclusion,” he said.
“As legal practitioners, we must safeguard the stability of our democratic institutions and the sovereign will of the voters, rather than validate interpretations that diminish them,” Rama added.
Call for lawyers to speak out
Former Cebu City councilor and lawyer Jocelyn Pesquera also weighed in on the issue, urging members of the legal profession to express their positions through their respective IBP chapters.
“I’m calling all members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to go to your respective chapters and voice your stand regarding the determination of quorum,” Pesquera said.
Why the IBP says the quorum was valid
The IBP earlier cited the landmark 1949 Supreme Court ruling in Avelino vs. Cuenco to support its position that the Senate validly constituted a quorum with 12 members.
In a statement released Thursday, the organization said the ruling allows the Senate to exclude lawmakers who fall beyond its coercive powers when computing a quorum.
The legal opinion stemmed from a 1949 Senate leadership dispute in which the Supreme Court held that an “absolute majority” of senators who could realistically participate in legislative proceedings could constitute a constitutional quorum.
Applying that doctrine to the current situation, the IBP argued that Senators Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa and Jinggoy Estrada could not be compelled to attend Senate sessions because one remains outside the Senate’s reach while the other remains under detention.
With the Senate’s effective roster reduced from 24 to 22 members, the IBP concluded that 12 senators constituted a valid majority.
“This Avelino ruling emphasizes a practical approach: the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that allows the Senate to function and not be blocked by the absence of members who cannot realistically be made to attend,” the IBP said.
The organization further maintained that all actions taken during the June 3 session enjoy a presumption of regularity.
Constitutional divide persists
The IBP’s position aligns with that of former Senate President Franklin Drilon and political coalition 1Sambayan, both of which have recognized the legality of the Senate reorganization.
However, several senators, including Alan Peter Cayetano, Loren Legarda, and Pia Cayetano, have rejected that interpretation.
Legarda has argued that the Constitution requires 13 votes because the Senate consists of 24 members, while Pia Cayetano has questioned the applicability of the Avelino doctrine to the present controversy.
Former Mayor Mike Rama and local members of the pro-Duterte group Hakbang Maisug-Cebu have likewise denounced the Senate shakeup, insisting that the chamber cannot legally conduct business without 13 senators.
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.
