Chiz Escudero denies getting favors, Malacañang hand in switch to Gatchalian bloc

Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero denies allegations that he received political favors for attending the June 3 Senate session and for switching to the bloc led by Senator Sherwin Gatchalian.

“Asan? (Where [are these favors] ?)” Escudero said in a podcast filmed on June 4 but only released Sunday.

The lawmaker noted he currently faces two pending complaints, pointing out that if he had received any favors, he wouldn't be facing those charges now.

“Pero hinaharap namin ‘yun at walang kinalaman ‘yun dito. E ‘di sana tigil na? E ganun pa rin e, wala namang pagbabago,” Escudero added.

(But we are facing those [complaints], and they have nothing to do with this. Otherwise, shouldn't it have stopped? But it's still the same, nothing has changed.)

The senator also refuted another claim that Malacañang influenced his decision to switch sides.

“Wala, para sa akin ang posisyon ng Palasyo ay walang kinalaman sa posisyon ng Senado, bilang senador,” Escudero said.

(None. For me, the position of the Palace has nothing to do with the position of the Senate, as a senator.)

He maintains that his decision to attend the June 3 Senate session was driven by his constitutional duty, noting that the Constitution prohibits either chamber from adjourning for more than three days without the consent of the House of Representatives.

“Nagpasya ako na itigil na ‘yung kawalan ng sesyon sa Senado… Kahapon kung ‘di pa kami nag sesyon, lalabagin na namin ‘yung probisyong ‘yon ng Saligang Batas,” Escudero said.

(I decided to put an end to the absence of sessions in the Senate… Yesterday, if we hadn't held a session, we would have already violated that specific provision of the Constitution.)

In a Senate session on June 3, with 12 senators present — the minority bloc of senators plus Escudero — a quorum was declared based on the Supreme Court decision in the Avelino v. Cuenco case in 1949. The High Court ruled then that an absolute majority of 12 constitutes constitutional majority of the Senate for the purpose of a quorum after one senator, Tomas Confesor, was in the United States and was outside the Senate’s jurisdiction.

All elected positions of the Senate, including the Senate presidency, were declared vacant during that June 3 session.

On Sunday, in a social media livestream, Senator Alan Peter Cayetano alleged that Senator Panfilo Lacson, a former Blue Ribbon Committee chairperson, had used committee hearings to “protect” the then-majority.

The senator added that it was during this moment that he discovered that the senators’ charges over alleged involvement in the flood control scandal were “negotiable.”

“At doon ko nga nakita ‘yung leeway ni Senator Lacson na—kasi may sinabi si Senator Lacson doon na parang, ‘di kausapin natin yung namamahala kasi yung witness na yan ay hindi credible,” Cayetano said.

(And that’s where I saw Senator Lacson’s leeway—because Senator Lacson said something along the lines of, ‘No, let’s talk to the management instead, because that witness is not credible.)

Seek the high court

Following the weeks-long altercations in the Senate, Escudero proposed to resolve the power struggle between Cayetano and Gatchalian with a petition before the Supreme Court.

“Nakakalungkot bilang miyembro ng senado… Subalit may remedy naman, kung 'di ka sang-ayon hindi ka pwedeng mag-matigas na lamang… Dumulog sa korte at hayaan natin ang korte na magpasya,” Escudero said.

(It is disheartening as a member of the Senate… But there is a remedy. If you disagree, you cannot simply refuse to compromise… Appeal to the court and let the court decide.)

He noted that the legal basis for convening the June 3 session—the Avelino v. Cuenco ruling—has, after all, been settled by the Supreme Court.

Escudero affirmed that the June 3 session had a legal basis, noting that while the landmark case was ruled under the 1935 Constitution, the 1987 Constitution retains the exact same provision on the matter. —RF, GMA News