MANILA, Philippines – Nagkasundo ang tatlong dating hukom ng Supreme Court na hindi direktang magagamit ang Avelino v. Cuenco sa impeachment trial ni Vice President Sara Duterte na nag-aalis sa mga senador na wala sa coercive jurisdiction ng Senado sa opisyal na bilang para makamit ang quorum.
Sa kanilang pahayag sa impeachment court nitong Miyerkoles, September 16, 2026, sinabi ng tatlong retiradong hurado na tumatalakay ang Avelino case sa pagtukoy ng quorum, hindi sa voting threshold upang ma-convict ang respondent sa impeachment case.
“The Avelino case is not the perfect precedent that will resolve the problem of how to properly interpret Article XI, Section 3(6) of the 1987 Constitution. First, what was resolved in Avelino is the right number to constitute a quorum, not the right number to convict a respondent in an impeachment case,” ani dating Chief Justice Reynato Puno sa ika-26 na araw ng impeachment trial ni Duterte.
Si Puno ay isa sa apat na dating SC justices na inimbitahan ng Senado bilang amici curiae para linawin ang voting threshold sa impeachment case. Ang imbitasyon ay kasunod ng hindi paglahok ng apat na senador sa trial dahil sa detention bunsod ng pending plunder charges, pagtatago, o medical leave sa abroad.
“What was interpreted in Avelino is a constitutional provision that is differently worded, that is, ‘a majority of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business, etc.’ Avelino addressed only the problem of an absent senator outside the coercive jurisdiction of the Senate,” ani Puno.
“The ratio decidendi of the Avelino decision is not as solid, not as clear, as it has to be deduced from the different opinions of the participating justices,” dagdag niya.
Sa halip, sinabi ni Puno na ang Avelino case ay maaaring gamitin bilang isa sa mga pagsubok sa pag-interpret ng Article XI, Section 3(6) ng 1987 Constitution.
“It fits the approach of the contextualist, functionalist school of thought that disfavors the literal approach which straightjackets and prevents the use of other relevant provisions of the Constitution as additional lens to discover its spirit and intent,” ani Puno.
Nagpahayag ng kaparehong pananaw si dating Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, na nagsabing ang Avelino case ay napagdesisyunan sa ilalim ng 1935 Constitution, hindi ng 1987 Constitution na umiiral ngayon.
“It was decided on the basis of the 1935 Constitution where the wording involved was different. It involved quorum and the quorum requirement under the 1935 Constitution says majority of the Senate. It didn’t say all the members, yes, majority of the Senate,” ani Azcuna.
“And so it’s not applicable. Whatever interpretation of that majority of the Senate for purposes of quorum is different from the two-thirds of all the members of the Senate required in impeachment cases,” dagdag niya.
Si dating Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., na namuno sa impeachment trial ni dating Pangulong Joseph Estrada mula 2000 hanggang 2001, ay nagsabi ring hindi direktang naaangkop ang Avelino case sa impeachment case.
“The matter in issue in this Avelino vs. Cuenco case was purely relative to the determination of quorum in a Senate exclusively acting as a legislative body, and performing exclusively legislative functions, and not as an Impeachment Court,” ani Davide sa kanyang written position na isinumite sa Senate impeachment court. Hindi nakadalo si Davide nang personal dahil kamakailan lamang siyang sumailalim sa operasyon.
Gayunman, sinabi ni Davide na ang Avelino case ay maaaring ituring na may “persuasive value.”
Sumang-ayon si dating Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban kay Davide na maaaring i-apply nang may kaugnayan ang Avelino case, at binanggit na maraming desisyon ng Korte Suprema ang kahalintulad ng isyung ibinangon sa Avelino.
Sinabi ni Panganiban na ang kanyang presentasyon ay bumanggit ng jurisprudence mula pa noong 1924 case ng Fuentes v. Director of Prisons at ang madalas na binabanggit na 1949 case ng Avelino v. Cuenco. Aniya, habang ang Fuentes v. Director of Prisons ay napagdesisyunan bago pa man ma-adopt ang Philippine Constitution, napagdesisyunan ito sa ilalim ng Jones Law, ang enabling act na umiiral noon.
“From the case of Avelino versus Cuenco, there are several other cases, up to the 2026 case of Generillo versus Senate. With which your Honors must be familiar, since it also involves the present Senate and the present Vice President,” ani Panganiban. Ernie Reyes
