A FACEBOOK POST, A FACTUAL ERROR, AND WHY IT MATTERS

A Facebook friend posted something earlier today.

This is someone who shares my pieces from time to time. Nag-thank you pa nga ako sa kanya before. I don't really follow him closely, but yesterday I saw one of his posts and it clicked: ah, DDS pala. That should have been fine — people are entitled to their politics — but then this came out.

He wrote — and I'm quoting directly — "First time in the history of the Senate.. There are 2 Senate presidents.. Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano stands firm he is still the legitimate legal moral Senate president while Sen. Win Gatchalian imposes himself as the Acting Senate President.. Only in the Philippines.."

Sounds harmless, no?

But read that post again — slowly.

What bothered me? This person has a following, he has a platform, and he actively asks — on every post — for people to subscribe to his page.

I have nothing against that. It's the misinformation I am paying attention to.

NOT AN OPINION. A FACTUAL CLAIM.

When you say "first time in the history of the Senate," you are not sharing a feeling. You are making a historical assertion.

And it is wrong.

This has happened before — not once, but twice.

The first time was February 21, 1949. Senate President Jose Avelino, facing corruption charges from Senator Lorenzo Tañada, deliberately walked out of the session with nine allied senators to break the quorum. Twelve senators stayed behind, continued the session, and elected Mariano Cuenco as acting Senate president. President Elpidio Quirino recognized Cuenco the very next day. Avelino went to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled against him, 6-4.

That case is called Avelino vs. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-2821. It is taught in every Philippine law school.

Then it happened again in December 1991, during the 8th Congress.

Senate President Jovito Salonga was running for president in the 1992 elections. A bloc of senators felt it was inappropriate — and potentially compromising — for a presidential candidate to preside over the joint session of Congress that would canvass the very election returns he was competing in.

So 13 senators held a rump session while Salonga's supporters boycotted. They elected Neptali Gonzales as the new Senate president.

But here's the detail that gets left out every time this story is told: the official Senate mace — the ceremonial symbol of the chamber's authority — was seized by an aide and was not present in the session hall. Senator Ernesto Maceda improvised. He tied a framed seal of the Senate to a constitutional commission mace and placed it on the table. That was the "official mace" under which Gonzales was sworn in.

Salonga refused to recognize the session as legitimate. He did not step down.

For a period, both Salonga and Gonzales were simultaneously claiming the Senate presidency — one holding the office, the other holding the title.

It was only in January 1992, when sessions formally resumed, that Salonga finally relinquished his position to Gonzales.

Two precedents. Both older than most voters today.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED ON JUNE 3, 2026

Twelve senators — including former Senate President Chiz Escudero — convened a session, established a quorum, declared all leadership positions vacant, and elected Win Gatchalian as Senate President Pro Tempore and Acting Senate President.

The legal basis they cited was Avelino vs. Cuenco itself — arguing that with Senator Jinggoy Estrada detained on a non-bailable offense and Senator Bato dela Rosa effectively outside the Senate's coercive reach because of the ICC warrant, the working Senate membership drops to 22, making 12 a valid majority.

Now here's what my Facebook friend conveniently left out.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines — the country's premier organization of lawyers — released an official statement saying the June 3 session was lawful and valid following the Avelino doctrine.

San Beda University Graduate School of Law Dean Fr. Ranhilio Aquino said publicly that the 12 senators acted within the rules. He said the Senate was placed in an abnormal situation after two days of refusal by the majority to attend — which, by the way, is also a constitutional violation.

And then there's Former FEU Law Dean Atty. Mel Sta. Maria — one of the most cited legal commentators on this issue.

Before June 3 even happened, Sta. Maria was already on record saying the Senate majority's refusal to attend sessions was a raw abuse of political strength and an abdication of the Senate's institutional duty.

After June 3, he said it plainly: "The system worked."

Sta. Maria also made clear that majority in the Senate is not a fixed number — it is relative, determined by how many senators are within the Senate's coercive jurisdiction at any given time. If two senators are outside that jurisdiction, the base number moves. The majority moves with it.

So, it's not a loophole.

And that's exactly how Sta. Maria argues the Avelino doctrine should be applied here.

He argued that you cannot allow senators to redefine quorum simply by refusing to show up. If that logic were accepted, any majority bloc could paralyze the Senate indefinitely just by staying home.

A group of law deans and professors released a joint statement pointing to Avelino vs. Cuenco and asking a simple question: "Since when has 12 become 13? The plain answer is NEVER — but the premise is mistaken, because it assumes that 13 is the magic number for a quorum."

And Malacañang Palace formally recognized Gatchalian's leadership, saying the developments align with the law and the principles of governance. They reiterated that recognition the following day.

So to be clear: the IBP, multiple law deans and professors, and the Office of the President are all on record saying the June 3 session was valid.

That's the part you won't see in my friend's post — because he didn't include a single source.

ABER, KUNG TALAGANG KATING-KATI KAYO

Here's my challenge to the Cayetano bloc and everyone cheering them on, my Facebook included.

If you genuinely believe Alan Peter Cayetano is still the rightful Senate president — if you are so sure the 12-senator quorum was illegal — then the solution is simple.

Show up.

Cayetano’s so‑called majority — all 13 of you — attend the next session. Drag Bato’s ass back into the Senate, get Estrada’s ass out of detention if you insist on counting him, establish your own quorum. Move to reverse everything the June 3 session did. Elect your Senate president. If you have the numbers, prove it on the floor.

Because right now, the only thing keeping this dispute alive is the refusal of the majority bloc to walk into that chamber. You can't complain about a quorum you voluntarily abandoned. You can't claim majority when you're hiding from the session hall.

Aber?

Ipakita ninyo. Ang number ang magsasalita — hindi ang Facebook post.

BUT WAIT, AM I OVERREACTING?

I had to second-guess myself before writing this. Maybe it's just a Facebook post. Maybe it's harmless. Eight likes, six comments — sino ba naman ang maaapektuhan?

But here's the thing.

Political misinformation in the Philippines does not stay small. It gets shared. The people who share it don't fact-check. They just pass it on. Eight likes today becomes 800 impressions next week — and by then, nobody remembers where it started.

In that environment, a post that misframes an established legal precedent as a crisis of illegitimacy doesn't just mislead one person. It feeds a narrative.

And if that narrative has a political agenda behind it — making the Senate look like it's in chaos, making Gatchalian look like an interloper rather than a legally recognized acting Senate president — then the post stops being harmless the moment someone shares it.

So no.

I'm not overreacting.

I'm reacting exactly the way anyone with a platform and a conscience should when they see false information being spread by someone who should know better.

WHEN YOU HAVE A PLATFORM, YOU OWE YOUR AUDIENCE THE TRUTH

When you regularly ask people to follow you, subscribe to you, engage with you — you are not just a person with opinions anymore. You are a source. And sources have a responsibility to be accurate, or at minimum, to be honest about what is fact and what is opinion.

And mahirap sa ganitong sitwasyon: you try to stand for good governance and fact‑checking, only to find out you have a Facebook friend with a platform who’s out there dishing fake news and calling it “opinion.”

It's fucking disgusting.

Which is exactly why we — bloggers, content writers, and anyone with a platform — need to be very careful when making claims on our posts, especially legal and historical ones.

Because when you post about something as layered as Senate quorum rules, constitutional doctrine, and jurisprudence that dates back to 1949, you are wading into territory that requires more than a hot take and a laughing emoji.

There’s a line from a certain senator he once threw at Risa Hontiveros during a Senate hearing: “Yan ang mahirap sa mga walang legal background.”

The irony, of course, is that the line really applies to the people posting legal opinions on Facebook without a single source attached.

If you think Cayetano is the rightful Senate president, say that. That is a defensible position that legal minds are actively debating. But dress it as what it is: an opinion. Not history. Not fact.

Post your sources. Link to the ruling. Quote the lawyers, the legal luminaries better than Cayetano, Cayetano, and Marcoleta combined.

Because when you don't, and the claim turns out to be wrong, it doesn't just embarrass you — it misleads the people who trusted you enough to hit follow.

If you want to cheer for Cayetano, go ahead. If you want to hate Gatchalian, be my guest.

Just don’t rewrite history to make your side feel smarter.

Kung gusto mong magpaka-partisan, sabihin mo. Pero kung gusto mong magpaka-historian, magdala ka ng resibo.