Can a Senate hearing run from behind bars?
A coup, a shooting, and a hunt for an on-the-run senator, all within the span of a few days. The Senate is, without a doubt, in flux. But instead of restoring public trust in our leadership, they have done everything but that. Case in point: On May 12, Senator Robin Padilla took issue with Senator Kiko Pangilinan’s tone and threatened to file an ethics complaint against the minority member.
Meanwhile, on May 25, Senator Imee Marcos, during her privilege speech, showed a video alleging ongoing efforts promoting a constitutional assembly plot—to which several Senators described the presentation as “propaganda,” “fake news,” and “conspiracy.”
Now, with Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment in view, the Senate turns to its latest priority: Can Senators attend work through Zoom?
A fragile Senate
Last Tuesday, May 26, the minority bloc walked out of the plenary session in response to the majority’s efforts to expedite a proposal allowing members of the Senate to attend and vote remotely. Former Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo “Ping” Lacson, who kickstarted the debate, questioned why the committee on rules was bypassed—with the proposal already being discussed in plenary.
According to our legislative process, after a bill goes through its first reading (in this case, when Senator Rodante Marcoleta introduced the proposed bill on May 11), the committee conducts hearings and consultation meetings before approving it with or without amendment. It is only then that it is scheduled for a second and third reading.
And if approved, it is passed down to the House of Representatives.
However, according to Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano, they did not need to go through that process because the proposed bill was simple enough to be discussed in plenary. This prompted Senator Pangilinan to take issue with the apparent expediting, saying, “Why are we railroading this process? I have a number of issues that I’d like to raise regarding this motion.”
After Senate President Cayetano continued in spite of these protests, the minority bloc walked out, leaving behind 12 Senators on the floor, forcing an adjournment due to a lack of quorum—basically, the minimum number of members required to be present at a meeting.
Robinhood’s charity
A fierce supporter of said motion, Senator Padilla invoked force majeure on May 27, claiming that the intensifying El Niño as well as the ongoing war in the Middle East are valid circumstances that should allow Senators to attend work remotely.
“El Niño… but I don’t know how that [will] affect whether a senator doesn’t have to come in. Because it’s hot?” said Senator Erwin Tulfo in a television interview following the plenary session.
According to the Cambridge Dictionary, force majeure refers to unexpected events that prevent someone from carrying out their legal obligations.
And for Senator Risa Hontiveros, force majeure applied to circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic, which physically prevented the Senate from operating as usual. She also shared that these global events shouldn’t stop public officials from going to work but instead encourage them to continue their work. “The war in the Middle East is happening to the people in other regions, precisely in the Middle East, and the impact of that oil crisis on our countrymen, that’s the reason we physically go in and do our jobs.”
It raises the question: Why is a months-long issue now being used as a means to avoid going to the Senate when Filipinos have continued to go to work despite its effects on prices across the board?
A matter of due process
Meanwhile, on a Facebook post, Senator Padilla doubled down on his support for Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa. He explained that, while dela Rosa wants to continue serving his country, he cannot do so without being arrested and brought to the ICC.
He also added that because no one can be viewed as a criminal without a conviction, dela Rosa should at least be allowed to continue his work as a senator—as someone who was voted to do so. “Iniluluklok siya ng taumbayan na maging senador. Hayaan natin siyang magtrabaho para sa taumbayan sa pamamagitan ng online.”
That said, how can we argue for the due process that should be afforded to Senator dela Rosa, when he himself, by hiding from the law, is preventing that due process from being carried out? If one is truly innocent until proven guilty, then he should at least open himself to scrutiny and prove his apparent innocence.
Reading between the bars
It doesn’t take much to put two and two together. In Senator dela Rosa’s exclusive interview with Jessica Soho, he shared that he was asked by Senate President Cayetano to attend the May 11 session to bolster numbers and assure the success of the Senate coup.
Now, with Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial scheduled for July 6, dela Rosa’s vote is certainly invaluable to prevent a two‑thirds majority vote (or 16 out of 24 senators) to convict Duterte. That said, following the shooting incident and his sudden midnight disappearance, it is highly improbable that dela Rosa can again walk the Senate halls and leave without issue—given that the next time he does, he will likely leave in handcuffs.
But dela Rosa isn’t the only one at risk: Senators Jinggoy Estrada, Joel Villanueva, and Chiz Escudero are all currently being investigated for anomalies surrounding the flood control scandal. Meanwhile, the Office of the Ombudsman has recommended plunder and indirect bribery charges against Senator Marcoleta related to his 2025 elections.
And the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) recently filed a complaint for obstruction of justice against Senator Padilla for allegedly helping dela Rosa escape the Senate grounds on May 14.
According to Senator Imee Marcos, the aforementioned cases are highly politicized attempts at weakening the Senate majority through legal pressure. But President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. responded by saying that the case buildup is simply the result of findings by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and other investigative bodies. In fact, he goes on to say that these were conducted and reported even when they still comprised the minority bloc.
That said, politically charged or not, 11 of the 13 senators in the majority, according to the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, are all facing active or unresolved investigations. Should this bill pass, we could even have senators working from home simply because showing up could land them behind bars.
Are those seriously the type of people we want leading our legislative branch?
******
Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber
