I. Introduction

This memorandum provides an exhaustive analysis of the twin concepts of a quorum and the majority of all the members under Philippine political law. These concepts are fundamental to the valid exercise of powers by collegial bodies, including the Congress of the Philippines, constitutional commissions, local legislative bodies, and corporate boards. The discussion will trace their constitutional and statutory foundations, operational rules, distinctions, and jurisprudential applications. A clear understanding of these concepts is essential to ensure the validity of resolutions, ordinances, and other collective actions of deliberative assemblies.

II. Definition of Terms

A quorum is the minimum number of members of an assembly that must be present to validly transact business. It is a precondition to deliberation, not a voting requirement. The majority of all the members refers to a voting requirement where more than half of the entire membership of the body, irrespective of absences or vacancies, must vote in favor of a proposition for it to be approved. This is distinct from a majority of the quorum or a majority of those present and voting.

III. Constitutional Foundations

The 1987 Constitution explicitly provides for these concepts in key governmental bodies.
For Congress, Article VI, Section 16(2) states: “A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business…” Article VI, Section 16(3) further provides: “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings…”. For the Commission on Elections and the Civil Service Commission, Article IX-A, Section 2 requires: “All collegial bodies… shall act with the concurrence of a majority of all the members.” A parallel provision for the Commission on Audit is found in Article IX-D, Section 2. These constitutional provisions establish a clear hierarchy: the quorum is a prerequisite, and certain critical actions require the stricter majority of all the members vote.

IV. Statutory and Rule-Based Elaboration

The constitutional principles are implemented through statutes and internal rules.
The Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160) governs local legislative bodies. Section 53(a) provides that a quorum for sanggunian sessions is a majority of all its regular members. Section 54 requires that the sanggunian act by a majority vote of all the members present, there being a quorum, except where a specific number of votes is prescribed by law.
The Corporation Code of the Philippines (Batas Pambansa Blg. 68) governs corporate boards. Section 25 states that a quorum consists of a majority of the board members, unless the articles of incorporation or by-laws provide otherwise. Directors cannot create a quorum by proxy.
The Rules of the House of Representatives and the Rules of the Senate operationalize the constitutional mandate, detailing how a quorum is established, questioned, and maintained.

V. Establishing and Challenging a Quorum

A quorum is presumed at the start of a duly called meeting. Any member may raise a question of quorum, which is a point of order. Upon such a call, the presiding officer must immediately conduct a quorum count. If a quorum is absent, the only permissible business is to adjourn. In Congress, a quorum call is a privileged motion. The journal of the proceedings, which enjoys the presumption of regularity, is the primary evidence for the existence of a quorum. In Tan v. Commission on Elections, the Supreme Court held that the enrolled bill doctrine, which presumes that a bill was passed with a proper quorum, is a conclusive presumption.

VI. The “Majority of All the Members” Requirement

This is a heightened voting threshold reserved for acts of extraordinary importance. It is not satisfied by a majority of the quorum or even a majority of those present. Every member of the body, including those absent, vacant seats, or members who abstain, is counted in the base for calculating the required majority. For example, a constitutional commission with seven members requires at least four affirmative votes for any decision, regardless of how many are present. This requirement ensures that critical decisions reflect the collective judgment of the entire body as constituted by law. Failure to meet this specific vote voids the action, as seen in cases involving the Commission on Elections.

VII. Comparative Analysis: Quorum vs. Majority of All Members

The following table delineates the key distinctions between the two concepts:

VIII. Jurisprudential Applications

Philippine jurisprudence has consistently upheld the mandatory nature of these concepts.
In Avelino v. Cuenco, the Supreme Court ruled that the Senate cannot exclude a member for purposes of computing the quorum. The entire membership as prescribed by law is the basis.
In Macalintal v. Commission on Elections, the Court nullified a COMELEC resolution for failing to secure the concurrence of a majority of all its members, as required by the Constitution.
In Province of Camarines Sur v. Court of Appeals, the Court emphasized that a local ordinance is validly passed if approved by a majority of the members present, there being a quorum, pursuant to the Local Government Code.
These cases illustrate the contextual application: stricter rules for constitutional commissions, and the rule of majority of the quorum for ordinary legislative acts of local sanggunian and Congress.

IX. Exceptions and Special Cases

Certain actions require a vote greater than a majority of all the members. For instance, overriding a presidential veto requires a two-thirds vote of all the members of each House of Congress (Article VI, Section 27). Expulsion of a member of Congress requires a two-thirds vote of all its members (Article VI, Section 16(3)). In corporate settings, some by-laws may require a supermajority for specific actions like amending the articles of incorporation. The constitution or governing statute always takes precedence over internal rules.

X. Conclusion

The concept of the quorum and the requirement of a majority of all the members are distinct yet interrelated pillars of collegial decision-making in Philippine political law. The quorum validates the assembly’s capacity to act, while the majority of all the members ensures a heightened level of consensus for decisions of paramount importance. The specific application depends on the nature of the body (constitutional, statutory, corporate) and the gravity of the action being taken. Legal practitioners and members of collegial bodies must meticulously observe these rules, as non-compliance renders the affected act void ab initio for lack of authority.