Minority walkout halts Senate debate on remote participation

Minority senators appeared to have prevented a vote on a motion to tackle in the plenary a proposed rule amendment that would allow senators to participate remotely in sessions, after they walked out of the plenary.

Senate Minority Leader Sen. Vicente "Tito" Sotto III moved for a quorum call and the adjournment of the session after the members of the minority left the session hall.

With no quorum, Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano said the majority would not object to the motion to adjourn but put on record that the members of the minority "scampered."

The heated debate started when acting Senate Majority Floor Leader Joel Villanueva introduced to the plenary the proposal of Senator Rodante Marcoleta to amend the rules and include a provision that would allow senators to attend plenary sessions through teleconferencing.

Cayetano, amid the debates, moved that the plenary tackle the proposal, which the minority senators vehemently objected to and opposed.

It was Senator Juan Miguel "Migz" Zubiri who first urged other members of the minority bloc to leave the plenary session after the majority bloc insisted on dividing the house through voting.

"This is a travesty of our rules," Zubiri told reporters in a chance interview.

Villanueva introduced the motion after the Senate resumed session following an almost three-hour suspension.

After the resumption, Senators Lito Lapid and Raffy Tulfo were visibly absent from the minority bloc, while Senators Francis "Chiz" Escudero and Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa, who were marked absent from the session during the roll call, were missing from the majority bloc.

Proposal to amend rules

To recall, Marcoleta raised a motion to amend the Senate rules and "allow a senator for justifiable reason to attend and participate in the session through teleconference" on May 11, following the leadership change in the chamber that installed Alan Peter Cayetano as Senate President.

Senator Panfilo "Ping" Lacson, during Tuesday's plenary session, criticized the motion and asked if the Senate Committee on Rules had already constituted and discussed the proposal.

Cayetano, in defending the motion, cited Article 136 and said constituting the committee is "irrelevant" as the motion was intended to bring the proposal to the plenary.

"The invocation of the Senate President is premised on the assumption that there was no action taken. But we took action, we referred it to the Committee on Rules so Section 24 now applies," Lacson said.

"You cannot just ram down our throats something that numbers can dictate," he added.

Senate Minority Leader Vicente "Tito" Sotto III backed Lacson and said the Rules Committee should be constituted before discussing the motion.

"How do I know this? Ako ang Minority Leader, hindi ako member ng rules? Ex officio, eh. Tumawag ba? Ano to binabraso?" Sotto said.

Cayetano repeatedly moved to divide the chamber and vote on tackling the issue in the plenary.

Senator Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan cited Article 136 and explained that since it can be considered a new motion, it has to be voted on by Monday, June 1.

"Why are we railroading this issue, Mr. President?...Are we now curtailing my right to speak, Mr. President? We are not able to ask questions as to why we are amending the rules," Pangilinan said.

"We are not able to ask questions as to who will benefit from the amendment to the rule. Is this rule, Mr. President, for Senator Bato, who is not here? We would like to raise these valid questions before we go into a vote," he added.

Senator Risa Hontiveros backed Pangilinan and said the chamber should vote on the motion by June 1.

However, Marcoleta took the floor and criticized Hontiveros for "having no legal background". This prompted the chamber to suspend the session, with Hontiveros and Marcoleta figuring in a heated exchange.

Senator Erwin Tulfo likewise questioned why the majority senators were seemingly railroading the rule amendment.

"My question is, why are we in such a hurry? Why are they, the majority, in a hurry to tackle this motion and divide the House, Madam President?" Tulfo said.

"I need, we need answers in the minority. Or is it because, Madam Chair, they're in a hurry because of news reports that probably two of our colleagues might land in jail this weekend? Is that the reason why?" he said.

"Is that the reason why they have to have this inserted, this section 41C, para makaboto po kung sino man yung makukulong dahil sa announcement ng Ombudsman na may ilalabas na po ang warrant sa ilan sa mga kasamahan natin, Madam President. That is my question," Tulfo said.

Rule XIV, Section 41 of the Senate rules state that the Senate President “may convene and hold the session through teleconference, video conference, or other reliable forms of remote or electronic means, using appropriate information and communications technology systems, due to force majeure or the occurrence of a national emergency as determined by the majority of all the members of the Senate which may prevent the convening of the Senate or the physical presence of its members in the session hall.”

This prohibits dela Rosa, who had been hiding from the public eye again, from participating in plenary sessions and the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

Earlier, a law expert said Dela Rosa could still attend the impeachment trials remotely provided that it would be allowed by the Senate leadership. But this could be questioned by the Supreme Court.

Dela Rosa left the Senate premises – where he was under protective custody – amid an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) over his role in the war on illegal drugs. –NB, GMA News