By Lane Afable, News Editor
Including foreign conflicts under “force majeure” to justify remote participation and voting in Senate proceedings would be an “unforced error,” Sen. Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson said Thursday.
Lacson referred to a social media post by Sen. Robinhood Padilla, who asked if war in the Middle East and the conflict between China and Taiwan were not force majeure.
“Hindi po ito ‘force majeure’. Iyan po ay ‘UNFORCED ERROR’ (This is not force majeure. This is an unforced error),” Lacson said in a post on X.
Earlier, Lacson said a move to allow senators’ online participation and possible remote voting would not likely succeed as the Senate rules allow virtual participation only during force majeure and time of national emergency.
Under the Senate’s rules, he said remote participation is allowed only in unexpected or uncontrollable circumstances or emergencies that prevent senators from attending sessions physically.
Meanwhile, Lacson said the Senate minority bloc will continue debating and raising questions over the majority bloc’s bid to allow online participation in Senate proceedings – including remote voting – and may seek intervention from the Supreme Court as a last resort.
“We’ll keep debating, asking questions, interpellating, and introducing amendments if it comes to that. If they disregard Section 24 and insist on Section 136 of the Rules of the Senate and divide the house and we lose the voting, so be it,” he said in a mix of English and Filipino in an interview on ANC’s Headstart.
“If the majority commits grave abuse of discretion, we’ll have the option to bring the case before the Supreme Court,” he added.
Last Tuesday, Lacson questioned the majority bloc’s move to tackle and vote in plenary a motion introduced by Sen. Rodante Marcoleta allowing online participation in Senate proceedings, saying it runs contrary to the Rules of the Senate and the chamber’s committee system.
He said Section 24 of the Rules of the Senate applies in the case of Marcoleta’s motion – that the committees shall discuss, decide and submit a report on all matters referred to them – since such motion has already been referred to the Committee on Rules, which has not been constituted as there is no chairman and members in the wake of a leadership change last May 11.
Also, he said Section 136 cited by Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano – where the rules may be amended through a motion presented at least a day before consideration – does not apply because there was already a referral of the motion to the Committee on Rules.
Lacson said the Supreme Court may step in when matters involving grave abuse of discretion committed by any officer, agency or department of the government are brought before it.
“So the Supreme Court can enter the picture if there is a grave abuse of discretion. The other option for the Supreme Court is not to step in because it will not interfere in our internal rules. But that is our final option, if Rule 136 is forced on us – which to us is unacceptable,” Lacson said.
On the other hand, Lacson said the minority is not ruling out another walkout from the session if the circumstances warrant it.
He noted the minority’s walkout and absence on the floor last Tuesday allowed minority leader Vicente Sotto III to remain and move to adjourn the session for the day due to lack of quorum.
“The majority cannot force the adoption of a motion without quorum. So we may also do that again – the minority leader will be left on the floor to question the quorum, a repeat of what happened last Tuesday,” he said.
Lacson also debunked claims that the motion introduced by Marcoleta for remote voting is similar to the situation of former Sen. Leila de Lima, saying a resolution he co-authored with then Sen. Drilon allowing her to participate in committee hearings and plenary sessions did not include allowing her to remotely vote.
“That’s all there was to it. Participate. Hindi kasama she can vote,” he said.
