Senate minority: ‘We have the rules on our side’ ~ HUMAN RIGHTS PROMOTIONS

From the Website of INQUIRER
links https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2235557/senate-minority-we-have-the-rules-on-our-side

Tinio: While remote vote is for Senate plenary, it might set precedent

links: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2235477/while-remote-vote-is-for-senate-plenary-it-might-set-precedent-

------------------------

Senate minority: ‘We have the rules on our side’

MANILA, Philippines — Minority senators intensified on Wednesday their opposition to a controversial proposal allowing remote participation and online voting in Senate plenary sessions, accusing the chamber’s majority bloc of attempting to rewrite long-standing rules amid looming legal and political crises involving several lawmakers.

The dispute erupted after a tense late-night session on Tuesday in which Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano moved to immediately consider a proposal from Sen. Rodante Marcoleta seeking to amend Senate rules to allow senators, “for justifiable reasons,” to attend and vote through teleconference, videoconference, or other electronic means.

The move triggered a dramatic walkout by members of the so-called Solid Bloc 11, led by former Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri and joined by Senators Risa Hontiveros, Francis Pangilinan, Bam Aquino, Erwin Tulfo, Raffy Tulfo, Sherwin Gatchalian, Panfilo Lacson, and JV Ejercito. Minority Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III stayed behind and moved for adjournment for lack of quorum on the floor.

Lacson said the minority bloc would continue resisting what he described as attempts to manipulate Senate procedures for political expediency.

“They may have superior numbers, but we have the rules on our side,” Lacson said in a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Wednesday.

Will play it smart

“[W]e demonstrated how to score a victory by retreating. When they in the majority play dirty, we in the minority will play it smart,” he added.

The minority bloc argued that Marcoleta’s proposal should first be referred to the Senate committee on rules before being debated in plenary, citing Section 24 of the chamber’s rules.

Cayetano and the majority bloc, however, insisted that Section 136 allows the plenary itself to determine, by majority vote, whether to immediately consider a proposed amendment even without committee endorsement.

“If you look at Section 136 of our rules, you do not need the endorsement, nor the forwarding of the committee on rules for the amendment of the rules,” Cayetano said during Tuesday’s session.

He later criticized the senators who staged the walkout, saying they abandoned the floor before the issue could be fully discussed.

“They scampered out and left Minority Leader Tito Sotto instead of discussing the rule. We are not even discussing the rule yet,” Cayetano said.

The procedural standoff further exposed deepening fractures within the Senate as lawmakers prepare for politically charged proceedings in the coming months, including the expected impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte and investigations involving several incumbent senators.
Questionable motive

Tulfo questioned the timing and motive behind the push for online voting, saying the majority appeared intent on changing Senate rules to accommodate senators facing possible imprisonment or arrest.

“Why is the majority in such a hurry to tackle this motion—this allowing a senator, for justifiable reasons, to attend and participate in the session through teleconference?” Tulfo asked, referring to allegations and investigations involving several lawmakers, including Marcoleta, the amendment’s proponent.

He then noted that there is already a rule allowing sessions to be held online in cases of force majeure or catastrophic events.

Tulfo further pressed: “Why are they, the majority, in a hurry to tackle this motion and divide the House?”

“Or is it because … they’re in a hurry because of news reports that probably two of our colleagues might land in jail this weekend?” he added.

The minority bloc has openly raised concerns that the proposed amendment could allow senators facing detention or legal proceedings to continue participating remotely in Senate deliberations and voting.

Among those cited was Sen. Ronald dela Rosa, who is facing an arrest order from the International Criminal Court over his role as an indirect co-perpetrator alongside former President Rodrigo Duterte in the case of crimes against humanity for murders related to the drug war.

Marcoleta has also come under scrutiny after the Office of the Ombudsman recommended the filing of plunder and indirect bribery charges against him over P75 million in alleged campaign donations linked to the 2025 elections.

Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Joel Villanueva have likewise been embroiled in alleged irregularities involving flood control projects, accusations both lawmakers have denied.
Tied to Sara Duterte trial

Former Senate President Franklin Drilon sharply criticized the majority bloc’s move, warning that the proposed amendment threatened the integrity and independence of the Senate.

“It is now connected to the impeachment trial,” Drilon said, referring to the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, which would tentatively begin on July 6. “This amendment has very serious implications, which must be exposed and condemned,” said Drilon.

“This is ugly. This is rude, as they say. A malicious and grave abuse of discretion I have never seen in the history of the Senate,” he added.
SC intervention

Drilon also suggested the issue could eventually be elevated to the Supreme Court if the amendment is adopted.

Sotto confirmed that the minority bloc was prepared to seek judicial intervention if necessary.

“If we are not able to stop it,” Sotto said when asked whether they would ask the high court to intervene.

Lacson also criticized remarks allegedly made during the debates, questioning the legal expertise of some minority lawmakers, including Hontiveros.

“In a condescending tone, a colleague who is a lawyer took issue with Senator Hontiveros’ lack of legal background,” Lacson said, referring to Marcoleta.

“I have a simple message — it’s the rules, stupid,” he added.
Not like De Lima case

Meanwhile, Sen. Imee Marcos, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s sister, signaled that the majority bloc would continue pursuing the proposal.

“We will pursue [the proposal] to vote via Zoom,” Marcos told reporters, arguing that similar proposals had already been raised in previous Congresses.

Hontiveros rejected comparisons between the current proposal and earlier calls in 2021 to allow detained former Sen. Leila de Lima, now a party list representative, to participate remotely in Senate proceedings.

“This videoconferencing being pushed by the Senate majority now should not be compared to the call in 2021 to allow then Senator De Lima to participate in sessions and committee hearings,” Hontiveros said.

She noted that the Senate’s temporary adoption of remote proceedings in 2020 was justified by the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“There is no pandemic now,” she said.

“Second and more important, Senator Leila surrendered then. She was detained, and she respected the processes of the law,” Hontiveros added. “Then and now, there should be respect for legal authority.”
Traditions

Zubiri likewise maintained that Senate traditions require lawmakers to be physically present during plenary proceedings, especially during voting.

“The rules and time-honored tradition of the Senate is that the members should be present on the floor to conduct business, especially when it comes to voting, regardless of technology available,” Zubiri said.

“If we agree to the majority’s request, no one will be on the Senate floor physically, and we can all work from home. It will be a mockery of the Senate,” he added.
Double standard

The controversy also drew criticism from election lawyer Romulo Macalintal, who warned that allowing a fugitive or detained lawmaker to participate remotely in legislative proceedings could create what he called an unconstitutional double standard.

Citing the 2000 Supreme Court ruling in People v. Jalosjos, Macalintal argued that legislative duties cannot be exercised outside the bounds of the law.

“Doing so sets a very bad precedent, if not an unconstitutional double standard that discriminates against ordinary citizens and similarly situated individuals under the law,” Macalintal said.

“The Senate leadership needs no reminder that the higher the office, the greater the requirement of obedience to the law—it should never be a passport to exemption,” he added. —With reports from Keith Clores and Tetch Torres-Tupas /atm