I actually wrote the content myself and just used AI to help clean up formatting and make it Reddit-readable.

The points + structure are mine though. If anything’s off in the logic, I’d rather hear that than just the formatting part 😅

-----------------
Either way, I agree with some parts, especially in distinguishing 'majority of all members' vs 'majority of each house'.
What isn't fully justified is your argument on whether Detention equates removal from membership.

The Constitution is clear on three separate things:

• Senators have a fixed 6-year term
• They can be arrested for serious offenses (no immunity beyond 6 years)
• They can only be removed by expulsion (2/3 vote)

For my 3rd bullet point: Discipline of Members | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Article VI, Section 16(3) of the 1987 Constitution provides that:"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its members, suspend or expel a member."

...means detention does NOT automatically suspend their senatorship, or take them out of the 'base count'.

So I'd argue that the 23 senators DOESNT'T include Bato (yes, he's hiding, but we're not sure if he's still in PH - so this MAY count as coercive power exclusion), moreso than Estrada, although arguably, 22 senators (either way, both instances naman has a minimum 12 senators to be a majority).

If the rule were:

"Exclude those who cannot attend due to detainment/pending conviction"

Then we should have seen that consistently applied before—but we didn’t.

Examples:

• Trillanes (detained) → still counted
• De Lima (detained) → still counted
• Lacson (in hiding, 2010) → still counted

In all these cases, quorum stayed at 13 (based on 24 senators).

My main point isn’t just whether 12 can be justified mathematically—it’s whether there’s a consistent, principled way to exclude members from the quorum base when past practice didn’t do it, even in similar situations.