We all saw the news. The members of the Senate were engaged in a heated debate when, in a show of protest, one faction rose from their seats and walked out of the chamber. Thereafter, when another session day arrived, the other faction consisting of senators from the majority, refused to attend it and left the senators from the minority hanging, basically waiting for nothing. Thus, a fundamental question confronted the institution and the public: can the Senate continue their business after a walk-out?

Of course, the answer is yes, provided that there is a quorum. As early as 1949, the Supreme Court was able to rule on this matter which involves substantially the same factual backdrop.

In Avelino v. Cuenco (GR No. L-2821, 04 March 1949), Avelino, the former senate president adjourns the session and walks-out with his allies. The remaining twelve senators continued the session and motioned to have the senate president position to be vacant, and elected Cuenco as the senate president. Avelino filed a quo warranto petition challenging the election, in which the court dismissed the petition due to lack of jurisdiction, but discussed that that there was a valid quorum thus affirming the position of Cuenco as Senate President.

The Supreme Court ruled on two issues: (1) adjournment of Avelino, and (2) quorum of the remaining senators after the walk-out of Avelino faction.

On the issue of the adjournment, the Court found that Avelino’s sudden adjournment was arbitrary and invalid because it was done without the consent of the majority. When Avelino banged his gavel and walked out with nine of his allies, over the vocal objections deemed his actions as abandoning the Chair rather than a legal termination of the plenary session.

While the Senate technically consists of twenty-four senators, the Court, in the case, noted that one senator was incapacitated in the hospital and the other was outside the country, deeming them incapable to vote and do their duties. To make it clear for everyone, a quorum is defined as a majority of the members of each house – thus, it is equivalent to fifty percent (50%) of all the members of the House plus one (1) member. In this case however, the quorum requirement shall be computed based on the twenty-three active members capable of attending. Ergo, the Court concluded that twelve senators constituted a legal majority of that functioning body. Therefore, because all twelve remaining members were physically present and voted unanimously, a valid constitutional quorum existed.

The High Court’s ruling underscores that the absence of some members, whether voluntary or involuntary, does not automatically paralyze a legislative body. A walk-out or deliberate refusal to attend sessions should not be confused with the loss of quorum. Unless the departure of members reduces attendance below the constitutionally required majority, the remaining legislators retain the authority to conduct business, deliberate on pending matters, and adopt measures within their jurisdiction. To view it otherwise would allow senators to refuse to participate just to further their own political and personal interests or agenda.

The image of empty desks in the halls of the senate chamber during a walk-out does not necessarily mean the session is suspended. As jurisprudence have shown, the work of governance does not necessarily stop when some lawmakers choose to leave the chamber, provided that a quorum remains. In a democracy, differences of opinion are inevitable, but the institutions entrusted with the people’s welfare are built to endure beyond those differences, allowing the work of nation-building to carry on.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by your access to or use of this content. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their specific legal concerns.