Series: Quorum, Power, and the Bending of the Law
The Great Philippine Senate Teleserye of 2026
A Comprehensive Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary, Crossdisciplinary, and Normative Transdisciplinary Analysis
◄Part 1: The Session, the Senators, and the Teleserye They All Scripted
Part 2: The Doctrine, the Distortion, and the Deal Behind the Drama
One Senate Session. Seven Disciplines. One Uncomfortable Conclusion
In Part 1, we walked through what happened on June 3, 2026: twelve senators declared a quorum, elected a new presiding officer, reorganized all the committees, and adjourned the Senate, all in less than three hours. If you have not read Part 1 yet, start there, because this post builds directly on it. Here, we go deeper: why the legal justification they used was constitutionally wrong, how the group contradicted its own logic in real time, and what was really going on behind all the drama.
The Constitution Changed. The Twelve Senators Did Not Seem to Notice.
As discussed in Part 1, the twelve senators justified their actions by invoking Avelino v. Cuenco, a 1949 Supreme Court case. But here is something that almost no commentator pointed out during the June 3 debate, and it may be the most important legal argument of all.
The Avelino case was decided under the 1935 Constitution. That old Constitution said almost nothing about how many votes you need to elect a Senate President. It just said the Senate shall elect its President and left it at that. No specific number, no threshold, complete silence. The Supreme Court in 1949 filled that silence with quorum reasoning: whatever counts as a quorum also counts for officer elections. That was permissible at the time, because there was no text saying otherwise.
But then came the 1987 Constitution. The framers, who knew the Avelino case very well, deliberately added language that closed that gap permanently: by a majority vote of all its respective Members (Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 1987, Art. VI, Sec. 16[1]). The gap the 1949 Court had filled with quorum reasoning was now filled by the Constitution itself. There is nothing left for a court to fill, and nothing left for a Senate faction to exploit.
📚 Concept: Constitutional Anachronism
Anachronism means using something from the wrong time period, like wearing a knight’s armor to a basketball game. Constitutional anachronism means applying an old court ruling, decided under a different and superseded constitution, to a situation that the newer constitution already addressed explicitly.
For example, imagine a 1950s company policy that said nothing about email. A manager in 1955 ruled that the department head decides all communications. Then in 1987, a new company manual explicitly says all employees have equal communication rights. Can someone in 2026 use the 1955 ruling to restrict an employee’s communications, claiming the old policy is still precedent? Of course not. The new manual replaced the old ruling by specifically addressing the same question.
That is exactly what the paper (which you can download at the end of this post) identifies as happening on June 3: using a 1949 gap-filling ruling to override the 1987 constitutional text that filled the very same gap.
📋 Side by Side: 1935 vs. 1987 Constitution on Officer Elections
| 1935 Constitution (Avelino era) | 1987 Constitution (June 3, 2026) |
|---|---|
| “The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives its Speaker.” | “The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members.” |
| No vote threshold. Complete silence. The Court had to fill the gap using quorum reasoning. Gap-filling was constitutionally permissible. | Explicit threshold: a majority of ALL members. The Constitution itself filled the gap. Thirteen votes required. No gap left to fill. |
| Applying Avelino quorum reasoning to officer elections: Permissible under this text. | Applying Avelino quorum reasoning to officer elections: Not applicable. The Constitution answered the question explicitly. |
Sources: Constitution of the Philippines (1935), Art. VI, Sec. 10(1); Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines (1987), Art. VI, Sec. 16(1).
The Core Legal Argument: Why Everything on June 3 Is Legally Questionable
This is the argument most commentators missed entirely, and the paper identifies it as the most decisive of all. It does not even require you to resolve the quorum debate. Even if you accept that twelve senators had a valid quorum, there is still a completely separate problem that invalidates everything that followed.
Here is the argument, step by step, as cleanly as it can be stated.
The Legal Argument, Step by Step
The Constitution (Art. VI, Sec. 16[1])
The Senate President must be elected by a majority vote of ALL its respective Members. In a 24-member Senate, that means at least 13 votes. This is explicit, fixed, and not open to negotiation.
The Constitution on Other Officers (Same Section)
For officers other than the Senate President, the Constitution says each House may choose such other officers as it deems necessary, but does not specify the vote threshold. It leaves that to the Senate's own rules.
Senate Rules, Rule I
The Senate's own rules list the officers of the Senate as: President, President Pro Tempore, Secretary, and Sergeant-at-Arms. The President Pro Tempore is explicitly an officer of the Senate.
Senate Rules, Rule II, Section 2
The Senate Rules then provide: “The officers of the Senate shall be elected by the majority vote of all its members.” No exception. No distinction between the President and the Pro Tempore. All officers. Same threshold.
Therefore: The Threshold for ALL Officers Is 13 Votes
The Constitution sets 13 votes for the Senate President. The Senate Rules use identical language for ALL officers, including the President Pro Tempore. The threshold is the same: 13 votes, from a 24-member Senate, for any officer election.
What Happened on June 3
Senator Gatchalian was elected Senate President Pro Tempore with 12 votes. The required threshold was 13 votes. Twelve is not thirteen. The election did not meet the threshold under both the Constitution and the Senate's own rules.
Therefore: Gatchalian Had No Valid Presiding Authority
A presiding officer whose election was legally questionable cannot give legal validity to the acts he presides over. Nemo dat quod non habet: nobody gives what he does not have (Black's Law Dictionary, 2019). He did not validly have the authority. He could not validly give its effect to others.
The Cascade: Everything That Followed Is Legally Vulnerable
Every act Gatchalian then presided over is legally questionable on this independent ground: the reorganization of all committees, the installation of Erwin Tulfo as Blue Ribbon Committee chair, the election of other officers, and the sine die adjournment of the First Regular Session. This argument stands entirely on its own. It does not depend on resolving the quorum debate at all.
This is the critical point that the paper makes, and that most commentators in the public debate missed: the quorum question and the officer election threshold are two completely separate requirements governed by two completely separate provisions. A valid quorum gives a group the authority to convene. It does not give them the authority to elect officers by a vote that falls short of the required threshold. Winning the quorum argument does not fix the officer election problem. They are independent of each other.
📚 Concepts: Cascading Nullity and Nemo Dat
Cascading nullity means that when the root action is legally invalid, everything that flows from it becomes legally questionable as well, like a chain of dominoes. When the first domino falls on a cracked foundation, all the others it toppled are also in doubt.
Nemo dat quod non habet is Latin for: nobody gives what he does not have (Black’s Law Dictionary, 2019). It applies to property and to authority alike. If you do not validly own a house, you cannot validly sell it. If Gatchalian’s election as presiding officer was legally questionable, he could not give valid legal effect to the acts he presided over.
Imagine a house built on a foundation that is later discovered to be cracked. The walls, the roof, the doors, and the windows may all look perfectly fine, but once the foundation is found to be defective, people naturally begin questioning the stability of everything built on top of it. If the foundation fails, the rest of the structure is put in doubt. That is the situation with Gatchalian’s election and everything the June 3 session produced afterward.
The Group Also Contradicted Its Own Logic
On top of the constitutional anachronism and the officer election threshold problem, the twelve senators also contradicted their own quorum theory in real time, and they did it publicly.
The group excluded Senators dela Rosa and Estrada from the quorum count, bringing the effective membership from 24 down to 22. Under that math, 12 out of 22 is a majority, and they declared a valid quorum. But then Senator Erwin Tulfo publicly said the group could not elect a new Senate President because they lacked 13 votes (Philstar, 2026a). Where does 13 come from? A majority of the full 24-member Senate. Half of 24 is 12, so a majority requires 13.
Here is the contradiction. If the effective membership is 22, then a majority of 22 is 12. They had exactly 12. By their own theory, they had enough to elect a Senate President. But they admitted they did not. That means they privately knew the full count of 24 still applied for Senate presidency purposes. They used 22 when it helped them declare a quorum, and quietly reverted to 24 when the higher threshold became inconvenient for them. The Constitution does not allow different membership counts for different purposes within the same session (Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 1987).
📚 Concept: Selective Denomination
Selective denomination means changing your total number depending on which answer you want at that moment. It is like a student telling the teacher: for the exam where I scored well, the total is 50 points. For the exam where I scored badly, can we say the total was only 40? You cannot change the denominator whenever it is convenient for you.
The group used 22 as the Senate total when they needed a quorum to proceed, and quietly switched to 24 when admitting they could not elect a Senate President. The same session, two different totals, each chosen to produce the most convenient result at that moment. The Constitution does not work that way.
The Real Objective: It Was Not About Sara Duterte
The public narrative offered by the Gatchalian bloc was that the reorganization was needed to strengthen the prosecution of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial. The paper points out a simple arithmetic problem that makes this explanation hard to believe.
To convict Sara Duterte in an impeachment trial, you need sixteen votes out of twenty-four senators, a two-thirds supermajority under the 1987 Constitution (Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 1987). The Duterte-aligned bloc had at least nine senators firmly committed to voting for acquittal (Inquirer Opinion, 2026). The pro-conviction side would have needed to win over essentially every remaining undecided senator with virtually zero margin for error. Even with new Senate leadership, that arithmetic did not change.
Why would rational political actors take an enormous constitutional risk in order to influence a trial they could not realistically win? The risk was high. The benefit for the impeachment goal was low. The impeachment explanation simply does not add up.
The far more compelling explanation is the Blue Ribbon Committee and the flood control investigation. To understand why, look at the chairmanship chain and its timing.
🕓 Timeline: Who Controlled the Blue Ribbon Committee and When
Initial Hearings
Chair: Senator Marcoleta. Pushed aggressively for witness protection for the Discaya contractors. Defended testimony connecting a key witness, Co, to Romualdez (Rappler, 2026b).
September 2025
Chair: Senator Lacson. Adopted a more rigorous approach. Transmitted evidence to the Ombudsman. Produced a partial report recommending criminal investigation of several sitting senators (Rappler, 2026c).
May 20, 2026
Chair: Senator Pia Cayetano. Installed after Cayetano became Senate President. Marcoleta returned as subcommittee chair for flood control. Estrada named vice-chair (Rappler, 2026c; Philstar, 2026b).
June 3, 2026 — The Day Before the Biggest Hearing
Chair: Senator Erwin Tulfo. Installed through the contested June 3 session. Pia Cayetano and Marcoleta displaced in a single afternoon (Philippine News Agency, 2026).
June 4, 2026 — The Scheduled Hearing
Eighteen ex-Marines who allegedly delivered suitcases of kickbacks were scheduled to testify. Former House Speaker Romualdez was among 34 personalities invited. Fugitive witness Co had released a video directly implicating President Marcos and Romualdez in budget insertions (GMA News, 2026a; Tribune, 2026).
The reorganization happened the day before the most explosive scheduled hearing in the investigation’s history. The chairs who had been pushing the investigation most rigorously were all displaced in a single afternoon. As the paper notes, this sequencing cannot be attributed to coincidence without straining credulity.
Neither Side Is Clean. This Is Important.
The paper is emphatic about something that partisan commentary on both sides tends to ignore: members of both the Cayetano bloc and the Gatchalian bloc are implicated in or connected to the flood control scandal. It is not just the Marcos side. It is not just the Duterte side. Senators from across the factional divide appear in the testimony, the referrals, and the evidence transmitted to the Ombudsman (Rappler, 2026c).
Among those named in various capacities were senators from both blocs, including Escudero, who defected to the Gatchalian bloc on June 3 to provide the twelfth vote, and who had himself been named by a former government official in connection with flood control kickbacks (Gulf News, 2025; Rappler, 2026c).
The real picture is not Duterte versus Marcos, or DDS versus DDH. It is every senator with personal legal exposure calculating which committee configuration is safest for them individually. Allegiances transfer not on principle but on self-interest. Both blocs call for transparency and accountability in front of cameras. Both perform accountability while privately managing it. Witnesses get summoned or not summoned, protected or exposed, based not on where the evidence points but on whose allies it threatens. The Filipino people, and the communities whose flood control infrastructure was allegedly fictitious, are the ones whose interests are being sacrificed to this bipartisan self-preservation.
Seven Different Disciplines. One Conclusion.
One of the most distinctive features of the paper is that it does not stop at constitutional law. It runs the June 3 events through seven different fields of knowledge, each with its own tools and its own way of asking questions. What is remarkable is that all seven arrive at essentially the same verdict. Here is what each one sees, explained plainly.
📚 Lens 1: Constitutional Law — Purposive Inversion
The concept: Constitutional lawyers are trained to ask not just what a rule says but what it was designed to do. This is called purposive interpretation (Dworkin, 1977). A rule cannot logically be used to accomplish the exact opposite of its own purpose.
For example: Traffic rules requiring vehicles to stop at red lights are designed to prevent collisions. Using that same rule, say claiming that stopping means blocking the intersection to prevent other vehicles from entering, would be using a safety rule to create the very danger it was designed to prevent. That is purposive inversion.
Applied to June 3: The Avelino doctrine was designed to stop a minority from blocking a genuine majority by walking out. On June 3, it was used in reverse: to turn a genuine minority into a manufactured majority by excluding the opposing side’s absent members. The rule designed to protect majorities was weaponized to manufacture a false one.
📚 Lens 2: Political Science — Institutional Subversion
The concept: Political scientists who study institutions, including Douglas North (1990) and James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen (2010), have identified a pattern called institutional layering through subversion. It happens when political actors work within existing rules while completely redirecting them toward new purposes, maintaining the outward appearance of rule-following while betraying the substance.
For example: Imagine a homeowners association rule that allows emergency meetings to handle urgent repairs. A group of homeowners uses that rule to call an emergency meeting, but instead of discussing repairs, they use it to vote themselves new positions and change the budget allocations. The rule was followed in form, but its purpose was completely redirected.
Applied to June 3: Every procedural step looked constitutional from the outside. A real Supreme Court case was invoked. Votes were called. The correct formal language was used. But the substance, turning a minority into a majority and seizing a key investigative committee the day before a critical hearing, completely contradicted the purpose the rules were designed to serve.
📚 Lens 3: Political Economy — Rent-Seeking
The concept: Economists James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock (1962) developed the idea of rent-seeking: using political power to capture wealth or advantages rather than earning them through productive work. A rent is something valuable obtained through political positioning rather than merit or effort.
For example: A food supplier who wins government cafeteria contracts not because they offer the best food at the best price, but because they cultivate connections with the official who decides on contracts, is a rent-seeker. The political connection is the mechanism of the gain, not quality or hard work.
Applied to June 3: The Blue Ribbon Committee chairmanship is an enormously valuable political rent. Whoever controls it controls which witnesses get called, which evidence gets emphasized, and which trails get followed or quietly buried in a multi-billion-peso scandal. Seizing it through a contested constitutional maneuver, the day before the most explosive hearing, was rent-seeking using constitutional procedure as the instrument.
📚 Lens 4: Sociology — Borrowed Authority and Doxa
The concept: The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1991) studied how political fields operate as structured competitions not just for material resources but for symbolic capital, which is the authority to define what counts as legitimate. He also identified doxa: the unquestioned assumptions that structure a field. Doxa is powerful because people follow it not because they are forced to, but because challenging it feels more costly than accepting it.
For example: In an office setting, the person who speaks most confidently and cites company policy frequently tends to be treated as authoritative, even if their interpretation of that policy is actually questionable. The appearance of authority functions as a substitute for genuine authority. Once others treat them as authoritative, challenging that becomes socially costly for anyone who tries.
Applied to June 3: By invoking a Supreme Court precedent, the group wrapped a minority power grab in the language of constitutional doctrine, hoping the appearance of legal authority would substitute for its substance. The doxa of the Philippine Senate, where a plenary-installed presiding officer is assumed to have legitimate authority, then worked in their favor: even senators who privately doubted the validity of the proceedings faced social and institutional costs if they openly contested it.
📚 Lens 5: Philosophy — Strategic Action Dressed as Democratic Reasoning
The concept: The philosopher Jürgen Habermas (1996) drew a distinction between two types of communication in democratic life. Communicative action is genuinely oriented toward mutual understanding and reasoning toward the common good. Strategic action uses the language and forms of communication as tools to achieve a predetermined outcome while appearing to reason openly. Habermas calls the latter systematically distorted communication.
Amartya Sen (1999) adds that the real test of any institutional arrangement is whether it expands or contracts the freedom of ordinary people to hold power accountable.
For example: A board member who arrives at a board meeting with a decision already made, then conducts a discussion that looks deliberative but is actually designed to produce the conclusion he already decided on, is engaged in strategic action dressed as genuine deliberation. The form of democratic process is present. The substance is not.
Applied to June 3: The invocation of Avelino was not an open-ended constitutional reasoning process that happened to reach a particular conclusion. It was a predetermined objective, seize the Blue Ribbon Committee chairmanship, dressed in the vocabulary of constitutional precedent. And it contracted, not expanded, the ability of ordinary Filipinos to hold power accountable.
📚 Lens 6: Comparative Jurisprudence — The 1949 Case Does Not Support June 3
The concept: Comparative jurisprudence asks how legal situations compare with each other across time. Precedent is only valid when the factual and legal conditions of the earlier case are sufficiently similar to the present one. Where the conditions are fundamentally different, the precedent does not apply.
For example:Imagine a doctor prescribes a particular medicine because a patient has a bacterial infection. Another person later develops a viral infection and insists on taking the same medicine because “it worked for the first patient.” The reasoning is flawed. The treatment was appropriate because of the first patient’s specific condition. Once the condition changes, the prescription may no longer apply. Using the same solution simply because it worked somewhere else is not good medicine..
Applied to June 3: The 1949 case and June 3 are different on every dimension that matters: the constitutional text governing officer elections was different, the absent senators in 1949 were factionally neutral while those excluded in 2026 were from the opposing bloc, the quorum theory was logically consistent in 1949 but self-contradictory in 2026, and the officer election threshold was met in 1949 but not in 2026. Citing Avelino for June 3 is not applying a precedent. It is borrowing its name while discarding everything that made it valid.
📚 Lens 7: Reformed Theology — Institutions and Their Proper Purpose
The concept: The paper grounds its final synthesis in a Reformed theological framework, drawing on Thomas Aquinas as received by John Calvin and Abraham Kuyper. For readers unfamiliar with this tradition: Aquinas taught that a law or institutional act is legitimate only when it is genuinely ordered toward justice and the common good, not just when it has the outward form of legality (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, Q. 90). Kuyper added that every institution has a God-given proper purpose, and using it for a purpose foreign to that design violates its integrity (Kuyper, 1994). The Reformed tradition asks: what is this institution actually for, and was it used for that?
For example: A court exists to deliver justice. If a court is used by those in power to protect themselves from accountability rather than to render justice, it has the external form of a court but has violated its proper purpose. Aquinas would say such a ruling lacks the formal cause of legitimate law: it is ordered not toward justice but toward the private advantage of the powerful.
Applied to June 3: The Senate and the Blue Ribbon Committee exist to legislate and to hold the executive accountable through genuine oversight, in service of the Filipino people. Their subordination to factional legal risk management, by actors on both sides of the aisle, is a violation of their proper institutional purpose. And the prophetic word of Amos 5:24, But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream (KJV), has the sharpest resonance for the families in communities that flooded because the dike was a ghost project. Their claim to justice was the stream. June 3 dammed it. The theological indictment falls equally on both sides.
📋 Summary: Seven Lenses, One Verdict
| Discipline | Core Question | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Law | Was the rule used for its intended purpose? | Purposive inversion: a rule designed to protect majorities was used to manufacture a false one. |
| Political Science | How do actors subvert institutions from within? | Institutional subversion: rule-following in form, rule-betrayal in substance (North, 1990; Mahoney & Thelen, 2010). |
| Political Economy | What was the real incentive? | Rent-seeking: seizure of a gatekeeping mechanism over a multi-billion-peso scandal (Buchanan & Tullock, 1962). |
| Sociology | How was authority constructed and normalized? | Symbolic coup: borrowed legitimacy from Avelino to convert minority capital into symbolic authority (Bourdieu, 1991). |
| Philosophy | Was genuine democratic process followed? | Strategic action dressed as democratic reasoning; contracted rather than expanded the freedom to hold power accountable (Habermas, 1996; Sen, 1999). |
| Comparative Jurisprudence | Does the 1949 case actually support June 3? | No on every dimension: different constitution, non-neutral absentees, self-contradictory quorum theory, officer election threshold unmet. |
| Reformed Theology | Was the institution used for its proper purpose? | Sphere sovereignty violated: institutions designed for oversight and justice were instrumentalized for factional self-protection (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae; Kuyper, 1994). |
Source: Analysis based on the paper (downloadable at the end of this post).
Can the Supreme Court Fix This?
The 1987 Constitution dramatically expanded the Court’s power. Article VIII, Section 1 now gives the Court authority to determine whether any branch of government committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction (Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 1987). This was written precisely for situations where a branch of government acts with manifest disregard for constitutional limits.
The paper notes that the officer election threshold argument is particularly accessible for judicial review, because it does not require the Court to wade into the contested quorum debate at all. The question is simpler and more direct: did the election of Gatchalian as President Pro Tempore meet the numerical threshold required by both the Constitution and the Senate’s own rules? Twelve is not thirteen. The Court has both the authority and the textual basis to act on this specific and narrow question if it chooses to, without having to rule on the broader controversy that was erroneously based in Avelino(cf. Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 2003).
Whether the Court will exercise that authority is a separate question. But the legal basis for review exists, and the scholarly record should be clear about what the Constitution requires.
The Law Was Bent: But for Whose Benefit?
Senator Erwin Tulfo once said famously (or should I say “virally”) that sometimes you have to bend the law in order to please the people (Ferreras, 2025). June 3 raises a harder question: was the law bent for the people?
Seven disciplines, from constitutional law to Scripture, all identify the same pattern: the use of legitimate institutional forms to accomplish illegitimate institutional objectives, with the specific purpose of insulating power from accountability at the moment of maximum exposure. A doctrine invoked from the wrong constitutional era, applied to the wrong factual situation, resulting in an officer election that did not meet the required threshold, which in turn gave legal color to a committee reorganization conducted the day before the most critical scheduled hearing in a multi-billion-peso corruption investigation, by senators on both sides of the aisle who have their own exposure to that very investigation.
The law was not bent for the Filipino people. It was bent for the powerful who had only their own selfish interest in mind. The Filipino people, as always in this teleserye, were the audience who paid for the production, and the ones left to clean up after the show.
Read the Full Scholarly Paper
Quorum, Power, and the Bending of the Law
The Great Philippine Senate Teleserye of 2026
A 37-page comprehensive Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary, Crossdisciplinary, and Normative Transdisciplinary analysis
References
Aquinas, T. (1948). Summa Theologiae (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.). Benziger Brothers. (Original work published 1265–1274)
Avelino v. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-2821 (Supreme Court of the Philippines, March 4, 1949). https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph
Black’s Law Dictionary. (2019). Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed.). Thomson Reuters.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent: Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. University of Michigan Press.
Constitution of the Philippines. (1935). Article VI, Section 10(1). https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/352
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. (1987). Article VI, Sections 16(1), 16(5); Article VIII, Section 1. https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
Diaz, Z. (2026). Quorum, power, and the bending of the law: The great Philippine Senate teleserye of 2026. zdiaz.com. [Scholarly paper]
Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking rights seriously. Harvard University Press.
Ferreras, J. (2025). Erwin Tulfo, Robin Padilla debate “bending the law” amid flood control projects probe. GMA News Online. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/960106/erwin-tulfo-robin-padilla-bend-the-law-flood-control-projects-witness-protection/story/
Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261 (Supreme Court of the Philippines, November 10, 2003). https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph
GMA News. (2026a). Senate panel invites Romualdez, ex-Marines to flood control mess hearing. GMA News Online. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/989996/senate-panel-romualdez-ex-marines-hearing-flood-control-mess/story/
Gulf News. (2025). Philippine senators in kickbacks scandal: Escudero, Binay, Revilla named. Gulf News. https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/philippines/philippine-senators-in-kickbacks-scandal-escudero-binay-revilla-named-top-auditor-education-official-called-out-in-flood-control-scam-1.500282639
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.). MIT Press.
Inquirer Opinion. (2026). The impeachment trial has not begun but it is already over. Inquirer.net. https://opinion.inquirer.net/191625/the-impeachment-trial-has-not-begun-but-it-is-already-over
Kuyper, A. (1994). Lectures on Calvinism: The Stone Lectures of 1898. Eerdmans. (Original lectures delivered 1898)
Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power (pp. 1–37). Cambridge University Press.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
Philippine News Agency. (2026). Gatchalian elected acting Senate president. PNA. https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1276491
Philstar. (2026a). Senate presidency in limbo after 12-senator quorum move. Philippine Star. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2026/06/03/2532585/senate-presidency-limbo-after-12-senator-quorum-move
Philstar. (2026b). Jinggoy, Marcoleta elected Blue Ribbon vice chairs. Philippine Star. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2026/05/25/2530440/estrada-marcoleta-elected-blue-ribbon-vice-chairs
Rappler. (2026b). Flood control corruption: Senate blue ribbon panel’s partial findings, recommendations. Rappler. https://www.rappler.com/philippines/flood-control-corruption-senate-blue-ribbon-panel-partial-findings-recommendations/
Rappler. (2026c). Pia Cayetano is new Senate blue ribbon panel chair. Rappler. https://www.rappler.com/philippines/pia-cayetano-senate-blue-ribbon-committee-chair-may-20-2026/
Rules of the Senate of the Philippines. (n.d.). Rule I (Officers of the Senate) and Rule II, Section 2 (Election of Officers). Senate of the Philippines. https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/rules%20of%20the%20senate-final.pdf
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Alfred A. Knopf.
The Diplomat. (2026). Philippine Senate kicks off impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2026/05/philippine-senate-kicks-off-impeachment-trial-of-vice-president-sara-duterte/
Tribune. (2026). Senate reminds Sara: File your answer to impeachment raps before Monday. Tribune.net. https://tribune.net.ph/2026/05/31/senate-reminds-sara-file-your-answer-to-impeachment-raps-before-monday
Leave a Reply