MANILA, Philippines — The power-sharing deal brokered by President Rodrigo Duterte in 2019 to keep his supermajority in the House of Representatives united led to a schism in the chamber, where two lawmakers claimed to be the legitimate speaker of the House.

Rep. Alan Peter Cayetano (Taguig-Pateros) claimed to have the backing of 200 lawmakers, while Rep. Lord Allan Velasco (Marinduque) was voted as speaker by 186 lawmakers on Monday.

Their numbers, however, do not add up. There are only 299 lawmakers currently sitting in the House — meaning that some lawmakers from the Cayetano faction may have jumped ship to the Velasco bloc. 

Cayetano and his allies questioned the legitimacy of Velasco’s numbers, even going as far as suggesting that they have “flying voters” among them. Velasco, meanwhile, has said that lawmakers have complained that their e-signatures were used in the manifesto of support for Cayetano without their consent.

The Cayetano faction also questioned the legality and validity of Monday’s session held by Velasco’s allies, saying that this went against House rules and the Constitution. The Velasco faction, of course, defended their actions, insisting that what they did at Celebrity Sports Plaza in Quezon City was legal and valid.

In the end, Velasco’s election was ratified by 186 lawmakers on Tuesday in a session held at Batasang Pambansa, forcing Cayetano to step aside.

Term-sharing

This all began with Duterte brokering a term-sharing deal between Cayetano and Velasco in 2019, which he admitted was a ploy to keep his supermajority in the House intact.

Under the power-sharing agreement, Cayetano is to sit as House speaker for 15 months, ending this month, followed by Velasco for 21 months. This has been dubbed as the “15-21” deal.

Seven months before the first half of the 15-21 deal arrived, Cayetano accused Velasco of plotting a coup d’etat against him, supposedly promising perks and committee chairmanships to his allies. Velasco denied this.

Cayetano would again accuse Velasco of plotting a coup against him after Rep. Paolo Duterte (Davao City), the president’s son, threatened to oust Cayetano and all 22 deputy speakers following grumblings from lawmakers on supposedly unfair allocations to districts in the budget. Velasco denied this once again, even calling it a “cheap shot.”

When the fate of the term-sharing deal began to be wrapped in uncertainty, Cayetano and Velasco went back to the source of the agreement — President Duterte. In a meeting in Malacañang on September 29, the two men, flanked by their respective supporters, tried to settle the term-sharing question with the chief executive.

The meeting ended with the president insisting that the term-sharing agreement be followed. But the Cayetano and Velasco factions came out with different dates as to when the turnover should happen. The Velasco bloc said it should occur on October 14, while the Cayetano bloc said no date was agreed upon.

Budget grumblings

Ultimately, the war for the speakership can be traced back to grumblings by lawmakers on the supposedly unfair allocations in the budget.

Rep. Arnolfo Teves Jr. (Negros Oriental), a Velasco ally, has alleged that the Cayetano couple, who represent the two legislative districts of Taguig-Pateros, will supposedly receive P11.11 billion in infrastructure allocations from the 2021 budget, representing more than a quarter of the budget allocated for Metro Manila.

Cayetano said claims like these are “completely false” and tagged it as part of a “campaign of lies” against him.

But lawmakers aligned with Velasco still raised this against Cayetano during the Marinduque lawmaker’s election as speaker.

Validity of Velasco’s election

Velasco was elected as speaker by a majority of lawmakers ahead of Tuesday’s special session called for by the president. The House session was still suspended when the Velasco faction decided to hold a session for his election at Celebrity Sports Plaza.

Rep. Rufus Rodriguez (Cagayan de Oro), who participated in the session through Zoom, argued that what they were doing was in accordance with House rules and the Constitution.

Rodriguez cited Article VI, Section 16(2) of the Constitution and Section 75 of the House rules to justify how a majority of lawmakers can convene in a session. 

He added that this is possible even if they are not at the Batasang Pambansa, citing the House’s session in Batangas when the Taal Volcano erupted in January.

He also said that the House can conduct sessions even without the mace — the symbol of authority of the chamber — as he stressed that the true manifestation of the authority of the chamber comes from the lawmakers themselves. Still, lawmakers at the session at Celebrity Sports Plaza moved to recognize their mace as the official mace of the chamber.

Other lawmakers, however, particularly those from the Cayetano faction, challenged the validity of the session, saying it is not legal and constitutional.

They said that the House session in Batangas was authorized by the plenary through a resolution, while the Celebrity Sports Plaza session was not. 

They also cited Article VI, Section 16(5) of the Constitution, which states that “neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.”

“The so-called session called at the Celebrity Sports Plaza had no consent of the Senate, and consequently it was not legal and constitutional,” said Rep. Edcel Lagman (Albay), who is not allied with either Cayetano or Velasco.

The Supreme Court, however, has held in three separate cases that parliamentary rules “may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body.”

In a move to quash these legal uncertainties, the Velasco faction simply ratified the election of the Marinduque lawmaker as speaker in another session at the Batasang Pambansa.