MANILA, Philippines — Sen. Loren Legarda on Tuesday said the petition filed before the Supreme Court seeking to declare the June 3 session at the Senate null and void goes beyond the leadership dispute in the upper chamber.
READ: Alan Cayetano, allies file SC petition to ‘protect’ Senate
In a statement released the same day the petition was filed by her allies, Legarda explained that the case presents a real and justiciable constitutional controversy that should be resolved by the Supreme Court—or risk repetition which may once again cause institutional impasse in the Senate if left unsettled.
“Today, it is the Senate leadership. Tomorrow, it can be any constitutional vote. If we allow the numbers required by the Constitution to be adjusted whenever they become inconvenient, then what protection is left?” Legarda asked.
“What happens when the issue is martial law, impeachment conviction, or Charter change? This is bigger than one leadership dispute,” she noted.
Legarda then insisted that constitutional requirements cannot be adjusted based on political circumstances.
“Twenty-four is still twenty-four. The constitutional membership of the Senate does not change because a member is absent, detained, suspended or temporarily unable to attend. Only an actual vacancy can change that number,” she said.
“The Constitution cannot mean one thing today and another tomorrow, depending on political convenience,” she noted.
The senator then warned that allowing such requirements to be disregarded could potentially create a dangerous precedent that could undermine the independence of democratic institutions.
Legarda believes that the Supreme Court’s intervention is necessary to provide authoritative guidance on a question that affects the integrity of the Senate and the stability of the country’s constitutional system, especially to prevent such impasses from happening again.
“Constitutional clarity is needed now so that this disturbance is not repeated. The Supreme Court must draw the constitutional line,” the senator said.
“In a constitutional democracy, disputes of this magnitude are resolved not through force, numbers, or political expediency, but through fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law,” she added.
