Senators aligned with Alan Peter Cayetano have asked the Supreme Court to invalidate the June 3 Senate session that resulted in the reorganization of the chamber’s leadership and the designation of Sherwin Gatchalian as acting Senate president.
In a petition filed through the Supreme Court’s electronic filing system on June 16, the group sought to stop the implementation of all actions arising from the disputed session.
The petitioners asked the high court to order respondents to cease performing duties and exercising authority derived from the June 3 proceedings, including committee chairmanships assumed following the leadership revamp.
They also sought the restoration of Cayetano as Senate president, Loren Legarda as Senate president pro tempore, and Jose Luis Montales as Senate secretary.
The petition further asked the court to declare null and void the June 3 session itself, the declaration of a quorum, the declaration of all elective Senate positions as vacant, and the subsequent election of new Senate officials.
Among those being challenged are the election of Gatchalian as Senate president pro tempore and acting Senate president, the selection of Migz Zubiri as majority leader, the appointment of Renato Bantug as Senate secretary, and the designation of Alfred Corpus as Senate Sergeant-at-Arms.
“Clearly, then, all the foregoing elections during the rump session on June 3, 2026 are void,” the petition stated.
Joining Cayetano and Legarda in the petition are Senators Pia Cayetano, Bong Go, Rodante Marcoleta, Imee Marcos, Robin Padilla, Camille Villar, and Jinggoy Estrada.
Not included among the petitioners were Senators Mark Villar, Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, and Joel Villanueva.
The petition stems from the ongoing Senate leadership dispute that began after 12 senators convened on June 3, declared a quorum, and reorganized the Senate leadership following the absence of several members of the Cayetano bloc.
The Gatchalian camp has maintained that the June 3 proceedings were valid, citing Senate precedents and the Supreme Court’s 1949 ruling in Avelino v. Cuenco.
The filing places the dispute before the Supreme Court for the first time, although the petition asks the court to rule on the legality of the June 3 proceedings and the resulting leadership changes. Notably, the petition itself does not constitute a ruling on the merits, and the Supreme Court has yet to act on the case.
