By Joseph B.A. Marzan
The election of Marinduque Rep. Lord Allan Jay Velasco as the new Speaker of the House of Representatives on Monday was in line with the provisions of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, according to a law school dean in Iloilo City.
According to reports, 186 representatives moved to declare the speaker’s post vacant during a special session held at the Celebrity Sports Plaza in Quezon City.
The lawmakers mounted the coup after 167 House members signed a “unity manifesto” declaring the vacancy and installing Velasco as speaker.
Rep. Joey Salceda (Albay 2nd), however, told ANC in a televised interview that 187 committed to the manifesto.
Only 15 names were listed in the manifesto released to the media, with Rep. Francisco Benitez (Negros Occidental 3rd) signing on behalf of the “Visayas Bloc”.
Velasco was afterwards elected by the same number of members as the new Speaker, replacing Representative Alan Peter Cayetano (Taguig-Pateros 1st).
In a press conference at the Batasang Pambansa shortly after, Cayetano called the session and the votes “illegal”.
But University of San Agustin-College of Law Dean Jose Mari Tirol told Daily Guardian that the vote appeared to be in compliance with the Constitution.
Paragraph 1 of Section 16 in Article VI of the Constitution provides that “[…] the House of Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members […]”.
Paragraph 2 of the above-mentioned section says that “A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business […]”.
In paragraph 3 of the same section, the Constitution allows the House and the Senate to come up with their rules.
Section 1 of Rule I of the Rules of the House of Representatives of the 18th Congress states that the Speaker “shall be elected by a majority vote of all the Members through a roll call vote with Members casting their vote without explanation”.
Section 75 under Rule XI is silent on the specific number, or computation of the number, of members needed to determine a quorum, simply stating that a “majority of all the Members of the House shall constitute a quorum”
The House currently has 305 members according to its website, which does not include 5 deceased former members, and 1 dropped member.
“Article VI of the Constitution [on the Legislative Department] simply provides in Section 16(1) that: ‘The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members. Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.’ And in Section 16(2): ‘A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business…’ So it appears that the vote complies with what the Constitution states: that the House shall elect its speaker, and that a majority constitutes a quorum to do business,” Tirol said in an interview.
Tirol added that holding of the session at another venue does not make the session invalid.
He cited the special session in Batangas earlier this year, which Cayetano said was a “tribute” to the families affected by the Taal Volcano eruption in January.
“It can be recalled that early this year, Congress, through Speaker Cayetano, organized a session in Tagaytay in the aftermath of the eruption of Taal Volcano. So based on the facts, the applicable Constitutional provisions, and precedent, today’s session outside the Batasan complex would be valid provided that all of the Members of the House were properly notified, and that the majority of its Members who were present voted to declare the position of Speaker vacant and proceeded to elect Cong. Velasco,” he added.
Tirol added that the absence of the House’s official Mace also doesn’t make the session and the voting processes invalid.
House Sergeant-at-Arms Ramon Apolinario told ABS-CBN News that he had custody of the official mace of the lower chamber, and that the Mace used in the session was not the official one.
Section 165 of Rule XXVIII of the House’s rules denotes the Mace as the “symbol of authority of the House” and “shall be displayed at the Speaker’s rostrum when the House is in session”.
On July 23, 2018, the election of then-Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (Pampanga 2nd) to replace Rep. Pantaleon Alvarez (Davao del Norte 1st) as Speaker was questioned due to the absence of the mace from the rostrum of the speaker’s podium.
Arroyo was elected Speaker on the same night, shortly after President Rodrigo Duterte’s third State of the Nation Address, with the Mace already on the rostrum.
He cited the 1998 Supreme Court case of Defensor-Santiago vs. Guingona which ruled that the legislative rules, such as the Rules of the House, may be “waived or disregarded” by the legislative body at will.
“The Mace is a ‘creation’ of the House Rules, and not of the Constitution. Since the Supreme Court clarified in [the case] Defensor-Santiago vs. Guingona that the Rules ‘may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body at will, upon the concurrence of a majority’, the absence of the Mace in [the] session would not be fatal to the validity of the session, provided that there was a quorum, that all of the Members of the House were properly notified, and that the majority of its Members who were present voted to declare the position of Speaker vacant and proceeded to elect Cong. Velasco,” Tirol said.
On the involvement of Duterte in the speakership process, Tirol said that under the law, the President does not have any power over the House of Representatives.
Duterte was witness to the “term-sharing agreement” signed by Cayetano and Velasco in July 2019.
Under the agreement, Cayetano would serve as Speaker of the 18th Congress for 15 months while Velasco would complete the remaining 21 months.
Velasco visited presidential daughter and Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte on Oct. 9 to court the support of the regional Hugpong ng Pababago party for his leadership bid.
“Constitutionally [President Duterte] does not, under the principle of separation of powers. Under the said principle, the three branches of government – executive, legislative, and judiciary – are supposed to check and balance each other. But on the matter of the speakership of the House, you have a situation where both contenders, and their followers, all claim loyalty to the President,” Tirol said.
LEGAL REMEDIES
Cayetano, however, may be able to seek legal remedies, according to Tirol.
The law dean said that the Taguig lawmaker may have three arguments: (1) there was no majority in today’s vote, (2) not all the Members of the House were properly notified of today’s session, and (3) the vote was contrary to the Rules of the House.
The first and second argument would be based on Sec. 16 (2) of Article VI, while the third argument, “if true, should be coupled with proof that the Rules of the House are not inconsistent with the Constitution, in particular the very simply worded Section 16 (1).”
Tirol warned that there might not be a cause of action for Cayetano to challenge the validity in court.
The dean reiterated the 1998 Defensor-Santiago case on the flexibility of the House Rules.
“He may file the appropriate petition in the Supreme Court to question today’s vote. But as to the question of whether or not he has a cause of action, remains to be seen,” Tirol said.
