With debates over rules likely to again mar the session tomorrow, Senate Minority Leader Vicente Sotto III is flexing his institutional experience to contest the majority bloc’s move to railroad an amendment that would allow fugitive senator Ronald dela Rosa to attend sessions and cast votes virtually while hiding from justice.
Speaking over Jarius Bondoc’s dwIZ program on Saturday, May 30, Sotto said the majority led by Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano is violating the chamber’s own rules by trying to railroad voting on Sen. Rodante Marcoleta’s motion. The Cayetano-led majority has 13 members as against the minority’s 11.
On Facebook Live, Cayetano said he was merely pushing to “divide the house” not to vote on Marcoleta’s virtual attendance motion, but only on “whether or not this should be discussed.”
But two majority senators were not present on the floor to help the Cayetano bloc maintain quorum – Sen. Francis Escudero, who left early, and the fugitive Dela Rosa himself.
To stave off voting, the minority bloc walked out, except for Sotto who stayed to question the quorum.
“That is the reason for the walkout. And of course, I would never allow them to vote. If everybody had walked and nobody was left to question (the quorum), they could have just approved everything they wanted,” Sotto said in English and Filipino.
Sotto said the walkout by the minority bloc was justified because the majority senators cannot just arm-twist the minority into giving in to their agenda.
“Papaano, binabraso nila. They’re insisting on a vote which was wrong, and they won’t let us speak. They wanted a division of the house immediately,” he said.
“The only thing left for us – and it’s the tradition of the Senate, not just here but in other countries as well – is when you feel what’s happening is detestable, you can leave, walk out and show them that you do not agree with what they’re doing,” Sotto explained.
Strategic move
Sotto said it was a strategic move on his part, citing his institutional knowledge to question the quorum or call for a roll call, which the presiding chair at the time, Senate President Pro Tempore Loren Legarda, had to recognize because it was a superior motion based on Senate rules.
“That’s why I chose to stay and let them leave and made a motion to adjourn because I knew there was no quorum,” he pointed out.
Sotto – a senator since 1992, having served as Senate president, majority leader and now minority leader – said a senator need not be a lawyer to properly cite and implement the rules of the Senate.
It was a swipe at Marcoleta who, during the tense session on Tuesday, May 26, ridiculed Sen. Risa Hontiveros by saying she has no legal background.
Their tense debate stemmed from Marcoleta’s push for including in the Senate rules the sweeping phrase “justifiable conditions” for virtual participation.
Sotto laughed off Marcoleta’s attempt to block the adjournment, when the latter said their rules do not allow walkouts to abort a vote.
But Sotto said their rules state that a motion for adjournment cannot be objected to on the floor. This was the reason Sotto said he mockingly asked Marcoleta, “I thought you’re an expert on rules?”
“The motion to adjourn is undebatable. It has the highest priority among all the motions,” he added.
Sotto also said he was wondering why the majority had not yet elected a majority leader, with Sen. Joel Villanueva only serving in an acting capacity.
Sotto surmised that Villanueva may not be interested in the post he previously held because he was himself unhappy with the bickering between majority and minority blocs.
“I can feel Joel is not happy with the situation,” Sotto said.
Villanueva is reportedly facing a plunder complaint with the Sandiganbayan for allegedly receiving flood control kickbacks. He has denied the allegation.
Creating distrust
In his FB Live broadcast, Cayetano cried foul over what he described as deliberate attempts by minority senators to splinter the majority’s 13-member bloc by floating reports of imminent defections and arrests.
“They’re throwing even the kitchen. Anything they can think of, kaso daw,” Cayetano said.
“One is to try to create distrust among the 13. Secondly is to create pressure. And number three, why predict? That there will be some arrests, because they have allies in the Cabinet,” he said.
He was also referring to Sen. Erwin Tulfo’s manifestation before last week’s walkout that the majority might be railroading the amendments to benefit members of the chamber whose arrests are imminent.
Cayetano alleged that the minority’s insistence on physical attendance is a strategy to artificially gain numbers on the floor.
He warned that if majority members are physically absent, the minority would ambush the plenary to wrest control of powerful committees and dictate the Senate’s agenda, including halting investigations on the multibillion-peso flood control scam.
“One of their intent is to not allow the electronic or teleconferencing or any kind of online voting para pag sila majority sa floor, aagawin nila yung mga committee,” Cayetano claimed.
The Senate President also categorically denied that the remote voting amendment is meant to secure the numbers needed to suppress evidence in the impending impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.
Cayetano clarified that the amendment currently being debated on pertains strictly to regular legislative sessions, not the separate rules governing the impeachment court.
He pointed out that the chamber has already adopted impeachment rules, which would require a completely different, lengthy process to alter.
Virtual voting opposed
An alliance of business groups and civil society organizations is urging the Senate to halt moves allowing virtual participation in proceedings as this could weaken the institution’s credibility and authority.
“Virtual or remote participation may appear convenient, but when applied to quorum, debate and voting, it directly affects the legitimacy of Senate action,” the Justice Reform Initiative (JRI) said in a statement yesterday.
“The Senate is a constitutional body entrusted with lawmaking, oversight and accountability on matters of national consequence. Its rules on attendance, quorum, deliberation and voting are not mere administrative details – they are structural safeguards that protect the legitimacy of Senate action,” JRI said.
It emphasized that these rules confirm presence and accountability and ensure legally sufficient decision-making. The rules also require open deliberation and transparency in each senator’s vote.
Even if Senate rules were amended, it said that it cannot compel external authorities like domestic courts or international bodies to allow detained individuals to participate remotely.
In the context of the impeachment trial of Duterte, JRI said procedural stakes are particularly high.
Citing Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, it said that the Senate sitting as an impeachment court operates under rules distinct from ordinary plenary procedure.
“The Senate’s authority rests on public trust. Procedures that cannot withstand scrutiny should not be adopted. Those that can must be earned through transparent process – not circumvented through expedient accommodation,” JRI said.
Meanwhile, Kalookan Bishop Pablo Virgilio Cardinal David rebuffed Sen. Imee Marcos’ claim that depriving Dela Rosa of the right to take part in Senate session or vote online would be tantamount to disenfranchisement of his voters.
“Shouldn’t those who voted for him complain because he has been absent from the Senate for six months while the people are still paying for his salary? Why didn’t he attend physically? Why will he attend online? Is he sick? Ah, OK, maybe he will be arrested? So the meaning of ‘force majeure’ in the Senate rules also needs to be changed?” David said on Facebook. – With additional reports from Neil Jayson Servallos, Louella Desiderio and Bella Cariaso
