Palace: No calamity to justify online vote

TOKYO – Unlike during the COVID pandemic, there is no calamity at present that can justify electronic voting in the Senate, Malacañang said, even as it maintained that it would be up to the chamber to decide on its procedures over which the senators engaged in a heated debate that triggered a walkout late Tuesday.

Palace press officer Claire Castro yesterday said the big question now is whether the failure of fugitive Sen. Ronald dela Rosa to attend sessions constitutes a justifiable reason to allow him to vote online, as argued by Senate President Alan Cayetano.

Dela Rosa, a former police chief, has a pending arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity linked to the previous administration’s war on drugs.

“Before, online voting, Zoom meetings were allowed because we were facing a calamity then,” Castro told reporters here, referring to the pandemic. “This time, there is nothing we can describe as a force majeure, a calamity that will justify online voting.

But she added: “Still, the decision is up to them. It is not for the administration or the President to decide. And perhaps they should be aware that it would be difficult to conduct an online voting or discussion if the person is not present in the meeting.”

On Tuesday, the Senate minority bloc walked out of the plenary hall after members of the majority who are allies of Dela Rosa tried to push for an amendment that would allow senators to attend sessions or even vote remotely for a “justifiable” reason.

It was “a travesty of the Senate rules,” Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri said on Tuesday as he led the walkout of colleagues in the minority.

As impeachment court judges, the senators would need to vote whether to acquit or convict impeached Vice President Sara Duterte.

The Senate is headed for another standoff next week as Cayetano’s majority vowed to keep pushing on Monday for a vote on allowing remote plenary participation.

Minority senators led by Sen. Vicente Sotto III vowed to “stand their ground.”

At yesterday’s press briefing, Castro said the legal troubles plaguing some senators should not be linked to the administration. She noted that some majority senators had been enmeshed in legal issues long before the leadership coup that unseated Sotto.

The Palace press officer cited the case of Sen. Rodante Marcoleta, who has been accused of plunder for receiving P75-million campaign donation before being elected last year.

She also mentioned Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, who may also be charged with plunder over the flood control projects scandal. “The administration did not throw the issues at them,” Castro said.

“This should not be associated with the administration because the issue has been there even before they came up with the 13-member majority,” she pointed out.

‘Why the rush?’

In a joint statement, members of the Senate minority condemned “what appears to be an attempt to rush a major change in the Senate rules, especially when several members of the minority still wanted to speak and raise serious questions on the floor.”

“Why the rush? Why stop those who wanted to speak? Why divide the house when many senators were still asking about the process?”

The group raised Sen. Erwin Tulfo’s concern that the rule change was being rushed as some senators may be charged with non-bailable cases and get arrested.

“We walked out because what happened on the floor looked less like orderly deliberation. The proposed rule change affects how senators may attend sessions, participate in proceedings and exercise their mandate through remote means, and such a measure should be opened to healthy public debate instead of being rushed by the tyranny of the majority,” the minority bloc said.

“We have always welcomed healthy discussions on the floor, but this should mean allowing all members to be heard, not forcing the chamber to move at the speed preferred by the majority,” it added.

Tuesday’s walkout demonstrates the widening cracks in the chamber between the 13-member majority and 11-member minority.

The rift began when Sotto was ousted last May 11, and came to a head the following two weeks after the shooting incident at the Senate on May 13.

Tuesday’s incident has raised questions on how the chamber would be able to move forward and accomplish any legislative duties, as well as function as a court for Duterte’s Impeachment trial.

Abuse of discretion

In an interview with “Storycon” on One News yesterday, former Senate president Franklin Drilon said the move of the Senate majority to amend its rules is tantamount to abuse of discretion.

“This has never happened in the past. This is really abuse of discretion, literally, of the majority,” Drilon said.

“They just want to change something. They just railroaded everything in this regard in disregard of parliamentary practices,” he added.

“The tradition in the Senate is that in such critical amendments as this, the tradition would call for a full debate, not ramming it down the throat of the senators. It calls for a full debate,” he added.

If the majority succeeds in passing the amendment, Drilon said the minority can elevate the matter before the Supreme Court. “That is a remedy available to the minority.”

For Ateneo de Manila law professor Mel Sta. Maria, the Senate majority’s move is unconstitutional.

“Let’s look at our Constitution, it says, ‘trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.’ Our Constitution was approved by all of us in February 1987. So back then, people approved what was in our Constitution. And when they read ‘trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed,’ there was no zoom back then, there was no online back then, it did not enter the minds of the framers,” Sta. Maria said over radio dzMM. “So that means that the understanding of the average person is face-to-face.”

The Student Council Alliance of the Philippines (SCAP), in a statement, said it is supporting the decision of the members of the minority bloc to walk out of the Senate plenary last Tuesday. - Neil Jayson Servallos, Janvic Mateo, Bella Cariaso