A Philippine legal article on constitutional meaning, voting thresholds, quorum, and practical consequences.

I. Why the Distinction Matters

In the House of Representatives, outcomes can turn not only on how many vote “yes,” but on what the Constitution or the House Rules require the “yes” votes to be measured against:

“All the Members” / “All Members”: a reference to the House’s entire membership (as legally understood at that moment).
“Majority”: a mathematical concept meaning more than half, but it becomes legally meaningful only once you know: majority of what?

Confusing these terms leads to recurring disputes in practice—especially in leadership elections, veto overrides, impeachment, discipline, and situations with walkouts, abstentions, or vacancies.

II. Constitutional Anchors: Where the House Gets Its Voting Standards

A. Quorum (the baseline for doing business)

The 1987 Constitution provides the House’s default rule for when it may transact business:

A majority of all the Members of the House constitutes a quorum to do business.
A smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel attendance of absent members in the manner the House provides.

Key consequence: “Majority of all Members” is not only a voting threshold—it is also the constitutional definition of quorum.

B. Voting thresholds are issue-specific

Once quorum exists, the required number of votes depends on the action:

Some actions need a simple majority (usually of those present, or of those voting, depending on the rule).
Others demand a majority of all Members (an “absolute majority” of the entire House).
Still others require supermajorities (e.g., two-thirds, three-fourths, or one-third of all Members).

III. Definitions in Philippine Legislative Practice

A. “All Members” (House membership as the reference base)

In Philippine legislative usage, “all the Members” generally points to the House’s entire membership at the time of the vote, understood in a constitutional sense as those who are Members of the House (i.e., those entitled to sit and vote, subject to qualifications and any lawful suspension of voting rights).

This phrase becomes legally decisive because it fixes the denominator. If the House has N Members, then:

Majority of all Members = (N ÷ 2) + 1, rounded appropriately (more precisely: strictly more than N/2).

B. “Majority” (a concept that needs a denominator)

“Majority” means more than half. But legally, you must always ask:

Majority of all Members?
Majority of those present (with quorum)?
Majority of the votes cast (excluding abstentions)?
Majority of a quorum? (Sometimes used informally; formally, it depends on the adopted rule.)

Without specifying the denominator, “majority” is incomplete.

IV. The Core Distinction

A. Majority of All Members

This is the strictest simple threshold because it requires a fixed minimum number of “yes” votes regardless of attendance (so long as the vote is validly taken).

If the House has N Members, then the required “yes” votes are:

Required Yes = floor(N/2) + 1 (equivalently: the smallest integer strictly greater than N/2)

Practical effect:

Absences and abstentions make passage harder, because the “yes” votes must reach a fixed number tied to the full membership.

B. Majority of Those Present (with quorum)

This requires more than half of those actually present (assuming quorum exists).

If P Members are present and quorum exists, then:

Required Yes = floor(P/2) + 1

Practical effect:

Attendance management becomes crucial; a bloc may win with fewer votes than a majority of all Members, so long as quorum is maintained and the rule uses those present as the denominator.

C. Majority of Votes Cast (those voting)

This uses as denominator only those who actually voted “yes” or “no,” excluding abstentions.

If V Members voted yes/no (abstentions excluded), then:

Required Yes = floor(V/2) + 1

Practical effect:

Abstaining can function like “not participating,” lowering the denominator and potentially making passage easier—but only if the rule is “votes cast.”

V. Quorum vs Majority: They Are Related but Not Identical

A. Quorum answers: “May the House act at all?”

Quorum is a condition precedent for valid legislative action. Without quorum, the House generally cannot transact business, except:

to adjourn, or
to compel attendance of absent members, or
other narrowly recognized acts consistent with internal rules and constitutional limits.

B. Majority answers: “How many votes are needed to approve this act?”

Once quorum exists, the required votes depend on the matter:

Some matters: majority (commonly those present, or votes cast)
Others: majority of all Members
Others: supermajority of all Members

VI. Where the Constitution Explicitly Uses “All Members” (and Why It’s Heavy)

Constitutional text frequently uses “all the Members” when it wants to prevent decisions by a small attended subset. This ensures legitimacy for weighty acts.

Common examples (House context, voting separately or as a House):

Quorum to do business: majority of all Members.
Discipline (suspension/expulsion): typically two-thirds of all Members for severe disciplinary action.
Veto override: typically two-thirds of all Members of each House.

Impeachment (House as initiator)

The House has constitutionally special roles in impeachment initiation, where thresholds are framed in terms of fractions of all Members (not merely those present). The constitutional design here is deliberate: impeachment initiation should not be triggered by an unusually small turnout.

VII. Practical Illustrations (Using Hypothetical Numbers)

Assume the House has N = 300 Members.

A. Majority of all Members

Required “yes” = 151 Even if only 160 attend, you still need 151 yes votes (which is nearly everyone present).

B. Majority of those present (quorum satisfied)

If 170 are present:

Required “yes” = 86

C. Majority of votes cast

If 170 are present but 40 abstain, leaving V = 130 votes cast:

Required “yes” = 66

Takeaway: “Majority of all Members” is much harder to meet than “majority of those present,” and “majority of votes cast” is often the easiest—especially where abstentions are common.

VIII. The Role of House Rules and Parliamentary Practice

A. The Constitution lets each House “determine the rules of its proceedings”

The House has broad authority to define:

what counts as “present” (e.g., physical presence, roll call procedures),
how votes are taken (viva voce, division of the House, nominal voting),
when the Chair may declare results,
when a motion requires a particular threshold (unless the Constitution fixes it).

B. But House rules cannot contradict constitutional thresholds

If the Constitution requires two-thirds of all Members, the House cannot reduce it to two-thirds of those present by rule.

C. When the Constitution is silent, the House may choose the denominator

For matters not constitutionally fixed, the House can choose via its rules whether “majority” means:

majority of those present,
majority of votes cast,
majority of all Members (less common unless specified), etc.

IX. Vacancies, Disqualifications, and Suspensions: Do They Change “All Members”?

This is one of the most contested interpretive areas, and the answer depends on what “Member” means in context.

A. The most practical constitutional reading

In operational terms, “all the Members” generally refers to the House’s membership as it exists at the time—those who are Members entitled to sit, which may change with:

death,
resignation,
expulsion,
assumption of incompatible office,
final disqualification,
creation of a vacancy due to election contest resolution.

Under this reading, vacancies reduce N, which reduces:

the quorum number, and
any “majority of all Members” threshold.

B. The policy tension

For high-stakes acts (like impeachment thresholds), some argue “all Members” should track the House’s full complement of seats to avoid manipulation through vacancies. Others argue that the Constitution speaks in terms of Members, not seats, so vacant seats are not “Members.”

Best practice for legal analysis: State both interpretations, then anchor your conclusion on:

the constitutional text (“Members” vs “seats”),
functional consequences,
institutional practice (when known), and
judicial deference principles (courts usually avoid micromanaging internal legislative counts absent grave abuse).

X. Abstentions: Are They “Votes”? Do They Affect the Majority?

A. If the rule is “majority of votes cast”

Abstentions do not count in the denominator; they reduce the number needed to win.

B. If the rule is “majority of those present”

Abstentions still count as present, so they remain in the denominator indirectly (because P includes them).

C. If the rule is “majority of all Members”

Abstentions effectively work like “no” in practical effect because the “yes” requirement is fixed and abstentions don’t help you reach it.

XI. Ties and Pluralities: Not All “Majorities” Are Equal

A. A tie is not a majority

If a motion requires a majority, a tie fails (unless a rule provides otherwise).

B. Plurality vs majority

Sometimes leadership contests can involve multiple candidates. If rules allow, a winner may be selected by plurality (highest number of votes) rather than majority—but that depends entirely on the applicable House rules and established practice, because the Constitution does not always prescribe the method for internal elections beyond the House’s power to choose its officers.

XII. Judicial Review: How Courts Treat “All Members” and “Majority” Disputes

Philippine constitutional practice generally recognizes strong legislative autonomy in internal proceedings, bounded by:

the Constitution,
explicit constitutional voting thresholds,
and the prohibition against grave abuse of discretion.

Courts tend to avoid becoming a “parliamentarian of last resort,” especially where:

the dispute is purely internal,
the House journal/enrolled bill and established doctrines apply,
and no clear constitutional command is violated.

However, when the Constitution explicitly fixes the denominator (e.g., “two-thirds of all Members”), the issue becomes more justiciable because it is a constitutional compliance question rather than a mere internal rule question.

XIII. Drafting Guide: How to Read and Write Threshold Language

A. If you see “majority of all the Members”

Read it as: an absolute majority of the entire House membership.

B. If you see only “majority”

Look for:

the House Rules provision defining it for that type of motion, or
the specific constitutional provision if applicable.

C. If you are drafting a rule, resolution, or internal procedure

Avoid ambiguity by using one of these exact formulations:

“majority of all the Members of the House”
“majority of the Members present, there being a quorum”
“majority of the votes cast”
“two-thirds of all the Members of the House” (for supermajorities)

This prevents disputes about abstentions, attendance, and walkouts.

XIV. Summary of the Difference (in one tight statement)

“All Members” fixes the reference base to the House’s entire membership, making thresholds attendance-proof and generally stricter.
“Majority” only becomes meaningful once the law or rules specify the denominator—all Members, those present, or votes cast—and each produces materially different outcomes.

If you want, I can also write a companion piece focused only on impeachment voting thresholds (verification, endorsement routes, committee action, and the one-third route) and explain precisely how “all Members” operates at each step, including strategic implications of vacancies, abstentions, and attendance.