Buong pangyayari: Sigalot sa Senado na nauwi sa pag-walk out ng minority | ABS-CBN News

Madam President, with the permission of the body, last May 11, 2026, the gentle— Yes, sir.Yes.

Session— Yes?I resumed session.

Madam President, last May 11, 2026, the distinguished gentlemen from Tarlac, Pampanga, and Rizal, Senator Rodante Marcoleta, proposed an amendment to the rules of the Senate, particularly Rule 14, Section 41.Pursuant to rule section 136 of our rules of the Senate, a motion to amend the rules must be presented at least one day before its consideration.Hence, Madam President, in compliance with our rules, the gentleman from Tarlac, Pampanga, and Rizal, Senator Marcoleta, is seeking the floor, Madam President.I move that he be recognized to explain his proposed motion, Madam President.

We recognize Senator Rodante Marcoleta.

Thank you, Madam President.Madam President, I would just like to reiterate for the record the proposal to amend Rule 14, Section 41, Senate Session.The proposal, Madam President, is by way of an additional paragraph, Section 41C, after Section 41B of Rule 14 of the Senate Rules, which will state as follows.Section 41C, allow a senator for justifiable reasons to attend and participate in the session through teleconference, videoconference, or other reliable forms of remote or electronic means using appropriate information and communication technology.I so move, Madam President.

We take note of the motion of Senator Rodante Marcoleta.I recognize Senator Ping Naxon.

Yes, thank you, Madam President.This is a parliamentary inquiry.What is the status of the motion introduced by the Honorable Marcoleta last May 11?Has it been referred to the committee on rules?

I am told that it's been referred to the Committee on Rules, Majority Leader.

Yes, it has been referred to the Committee on Rules, and that's why in this particular deliberation, the Committee on Rules is giving it back to the floor for a plenary action, Madam President.

Thank you, Mr. President.Has the Committee on Rules been constituted?

I believe that Senator Joel Villanueva is the acting majority leader and would be the best position to answer the question.In the meantime, I recognize Senate President Cayetano.

Madam Chair, with the permission of Senator Villanueva, so the Committee on Rules is not reporting out the proposal?

No, my question, Mr. President, I'm sorry, Madam President, with your permission, my question is, has the Committee on Rules been constituted?Yes.

So, Madam President, The answer there is the same answer to the question of Senator Pangilinan and former Senate President Soto, that in accordance with Section 19, this is the same, they continue to function.Having said that, I was explaining that the motion of Senator Villanueva was not for the Committee on Rules to reportout what was referred to them, but to return to the plenary, because if you look at section 136 of our rules, the rules may be amended by means of a motion which should be presented at least one day before its consideration, and a vote of majority senators present shall be required for its approval.So you do not need the endorsement nor the forwarding of the Committee of Rules for the amendments of the rules.So the only requirement is that it is put on the floor at least one day before the proposal is made and that a majority of the Senators present will vote for its approval.So I just wanted to clarify that just so that We don't have any miscommunication that whether or not the Rules Committee met, who are the members, et cetera, because right now that's irrelevant, because we have given back to the plenary the proposal.

Very clear.Thank you, Senator.Madam President.Senator Luxon's recommendation.

Does it mean that we are now disregarding the committees of the Senate?So the committee chairman or the chairman of any committee, including the Rules Committee, may just report out any any motion or any resolution referred to it in plenary and then just, you know, it is within his power to just report it out by himself without any deliberation in the committee, without any committee report.Is that the new rule now, Mr. President?

Madam President?There's no new rule.I read the rule.Senator Lacson is referring to resolutions or communications or anything referred to the committee onWe're talking about a motion to amend the rules.We had the option of taking it up, but since everyone asked for one more day, it was given to the committee on rules.

The committee on rules has an option to take it up, but the acting majority leader or acting chairman of the committee gave it back to plenary, and the plenary is more How do I put it?Supreme.Supreme, thank you Senator Lacson, over the committee.So we didn't disregard the committee.It is our choice from the start whether we want to give it to the committee or not.So when we give it, so for example, I have a motion now to extend the session to June 12 instead of June 5.

That can be given to the Committee on Rules.or upon coordination with the House, the plenary can decide it directly or we can give it to the Committee on Rules and after he talks to the House of Representatives, he can even report it out or he can easily, legally, morally, just say that I am tossing it back to the plenary, which is what's happening today.

Thank you, Madam President.That is assuming that there was no referral.But in this case, and I'd like to invite the attention of the body to journal number 62, dated May 11, 2026.And if I may read the particular portion of this journal.Proposed at 6 .25 PM, the session was resumed.Proposed amendment to the rules of the Senate.

Senator Marcoletta proposed an amendment to rule 14, Senate session.of the Rules, by inserting a new paragraph C under Rule 41, which reads, A or C, allow a senator for justifiable reasons to attend and participate in the session through teleconference, videoconference, or other reliable forms of remote or electronic means using appropriate information and communications technology.Now, here's the portion, Mr. President, or Madam President, while expressing no objection to the proposal, Senate President Cayetano A. suggested giving the Committee on Rules time to discuss the matter.Now, my question is, was there any discussion by the Committee on Rules?Apparently, there was none, because it's now being reported out by the acting majority leader without consultation with any of the members.

And by the way, Mr. or Madam President, I believe that it was mentioned and I will reiterate from my understanding that there was no committee on rules meeting because that motion is reverted back to plenary.We are not ignoring the fact that of course committees must hold meetings but this particular motion is being referred back to plenary and may we just put on record it says in rule or section 136 the rules may also be amended by means of a motion which should be presented at least one day and we're complying with that before its consideration and the vote of the majority of the senators present in this session shall be required for its approval.I believe that is what the Senate President had explained.

to refer it to the Committee on Rules since the position of majority floor leader was vacated.So how can the committee properly function in the absence of a committee, yeah, of the committee members?

As the Senate president had stated, there is a rule of a continuing operations of the committee while the new head has not been.

Walang members ang committee on rules.So we cannot invoke continuity because we vacated.all committees, all positions, including the members.And may I invite you to Section 24 of our rules, Madam President.The committees shall hold meetings to discuss, decide, and submit a report on all matters transmitted to them.This was transmitted to the Committee on Rules.

So the committees shall hold, including the Committee on Rules, shall hold meetings to discuss, decide, and submit a report.There's no report.Mr. President or Madam President?

Madam President.

So we're violating our own rules.

We recognize Senate President.

Mr. President, the chair already made the ruling and it's not appropriate to argue with the chair because as explained to Senator Lacson, the committee did not report it out.He read the journal of May 11, but he did not read the motion of Senator Joel today.His motion today was pursuant to Rule 136 of the rules, a motion to amend the rules, meaning if Joel was no longer the majority leader, if I was the majority leader now, or even an ordinary member, that motion was carried.No one objected that we take it up.Because Madam Chair, we're bringing it back to plenary.So natural po, walang discussion sa Committee on Rules.

Kasi wala namang po sa rules natin na kailangan i -discuss sa Committee on Rules.We did that on May 11 so that everyone will have an opportunity to study the rule.It's a very simple amendment, so we should go to the discussion of the amendment if anyone is objecting to the amendment.But definitely the If the right to propose an amendment is a right guaranteed by our rules, Senator Marcoleta has an amendment, we should go to discussing the merits or demerits of having that rule.You already ruled that it is proper for the plenary to take it up.So may I request or move that we, if there are any objections, we discuss their objection.

I'm objecting.That's the effect of my manifestation, Madam President.I'm objecting because I'm invoking Section 24 of our rules.And as I read into the records, the Journal of May 11, 2026, it was referred to the Committee on Rules.And there was no discussion.Action was taken, actually, by this body.

Then, Madam Chair, if there's an objection, may I move that we divide the House?On that issue, not on the issue of whether or not the rule is good.Your issue is whether or not it's proper to take it up on the floor.The position of the majority is that there's no rule being violated, so we will vote.The presiding officer has already ruled.but the gentleman continues to object, so we have to vote on it.

We're not voting on the amendment yet.We're voting on whether the amendment is proper or not.

Yes, interjection, Madam President?

Yes, Minority Leader, Senator Soto.

We will have to support that resolution or thinkingSenator Lacson, which is, we did not constitute the Committee on Rules.So what are we discussing right now?I suggest that we constitute the Committee on Rules and discuss it there.How do I know this?I'm a minority leader, I'm not a member of the Rules.

It's an ex -officio.Did they call me?No.What is this?Are they threatening me?

Point of order, Madam Chairman.Where in the rules does it say that an amendment has to pass the Committee on Rules?

Section 24, Madam President.

Anong sabi po sa Section 24?

The Committee shall hold meetings to discuss, decide, and submit a report on all matters transmitted to them.

Madam Chairman, that's not the rule.The rule is 136.

136.Can you please, for the third time, may we request the Senate President to read into the record the rule 136.

The rules may be amended by means of a motion which would be presented at least one day before its consideration and the vote of the majority of the senators present in the session hall shall be required for its approval.So I respect their objection, but how do we determine objections in this Senate, we vote.So if there is an objection, they have already explained their position, we have explained our position, I move that we divide the House, Madam Chair.

May I, Mr. President?We are several members of the minority here, and only Senator Lacson has spoken.Why are we re -roading this process, Mr. President?I have a number of issues that I'd like to raise regarding this motion, Mr. President.They are citing Section 136, assuming, for the sake of argument, that their position is correct.The second paragraph, Mr. President.

says the rules may also be amended by means of a motion, which should be presented at least one day before its consideration.We submit, Mr. President, that the earlier motion that was entered or was referred to the Committee on Rules This is a new motion, Mr. President, and therefore we have to take consideration of the one -day requirement before we can act on it, Mr. President.And that should be, if not tomorrow, because we don't have any session tomorrow, that should be on Monday, Mr. President.Again, let me reiterate, the rules may also be amended by means of a motion.which should be presented at least one day before its consideration.We submit that the motion that was mentioned last May 11 was referred to the Committee on Rules.

This is a new motion, Mr. President, that is being presented on the floor, which requires that it be presented one day before it is considered.And therefore, we have to consider this motion on Monday, Mr. President.

The motion of Senator Marcoletta has been brought to the plenary.Both the majority and the minority have mentioned Rule Section 136, and it says that the vote of the majority of the Senators present in session shall be required for the approval.I believe that this rule has been mentioned more than five times.I believe also that the interpretation of the rule is different.So I take note of the manifestation of Senator Pangilinan.

Mr. President, if I may just continue, Mr. President.All in previous...

Senator Laxon actually has the floor.With the permission of Senator Laxon.Senator Laxon has the floor.May we continue with the manifestation of Senator Laxon?And then after him, he will yield to Senator Pangilinan.

Madam President, the invocation of the Senate President of Rule 136 is premised on the assumption that there was no action taken.But we took action, we referred it to the Committee on Rules.So Section 24 now applies, Madam President.We're gonna just ram down our throat, something that numbers can dictate, Mr. President.

Yes, Senate President Cayetano.

First of all, we're just repeating the arguments.I respect his argument, but I disagree with it.Secondly, they've used already three words, ram down their throat, railroaded, binabraso.In this democratic institution, when we disagree, we vote.When we have rules, we follow the rules.The particular rule in amending the rules is 136.

We're following that.So why are we using unparliamentary language to express or try to provoke people?the kind of argument we don't want between the majority and minority.You have your opinion.We respect that.We have our opinion.

So how do we resolve that?By voting.Now, if you think we violated the rule, then go to court.But we do not think that we violated the rule.It is very clear.So my point of order, Madam Chair, they're out of order by insisting that there's another rule except for 136.

So I move that we vote.on it, Madam President.We divide the House.

Objection.Objection.

There's an objection.Then we vote.So may we proceed with the vote, Madam President?

Mr. President, I was earlier – it was the manifestation of the presiding officer.the Madame Chairperson, that after Senator Lacson, I be allowed to speak, Mr. President.Are we now curtailing my right to speak, Mr. President?We are not able to ask questions as to why we are amending the rules?We are not able to ask questions as to who they wish, who will benefit from the amendment to the rules.Is this rule, Mr. President, is this rule, Mr. President, for Senator Batoc, who is not here?

We would like to raise these valid questions, Mr. President, before we go into a vote, Mr. President.

How can the presiding officer recognize Senator Pangilinan?Please, no.that I would never curtail your right to speak, just as in 2004, I believe you were seated, and I was a vice presidential candidate of FPJ then, and my microphone was closed, and my right to speak was closed, was not given.I remember that time now, and the word noted was said to me.That will not happen now.I will not do that to you.

And I'm not curtailing your right to speak, Senator Pangilinan, except that you were speaking at the same time.And I was about to recognize you because Senator Lacson had the floor.

Thank you, Madam President, for that clarification.

So I just wanted to be clear on record because I recognize you're being emotional, but it will go on Senate record that the presiding officer was curtailing your right to speak.I would never do that.do that, and I would not do what I experienced in 2004 in the House of Representatives in the canvassing of the votes then.Thank you.

Madam President, with due respect, Mr. President, I was not referring to the presiding officer.

I'm yielding the floor to Senator Pangilinan.

Yes.Thank you, Senator Lacson.We recognize Senator Francis Pangilinan.

Yes, Mr. President.And allow me to clarify, Madam President, I was not referring to the Presiding Officer in terms of the curtailing of my right to speak and to raise questions, Mr. President, because it was the Senate President who was moving to divide the House, Mr. President, without sufficient debates.Mr. President, this is the first time I'm going to experience this in a long time wherein debates are now being curtailed.because there's a motion to divide the House.

Since you're not being curtailed, we would like to hear your objection to the motion.Thank you.

Mr. President, there are a lot of questions that have to be raised as to why this amendment to the rules is being undertaken at this time.President provides, Mr. President, that when we amend our rules, we do so by way of resolution.We do not have that resolution now.In fact, Mr. President, a total of 48 amendments of our rules all went through resolutions.This is the first time after 48 amendments, Mr. President, that we do not have a resolution so that we can vote— Point of order, Madam Chair.—and amend the rules properly, Mr. President.

Point of order.Point of order takes precedence.

Yes, Sen. President.Point of order takes precedence.

First of all, I hope we learned our lesson.Senator Pangilinan already apologized to Senator Padillathen now you're shouting at us.No, the record will show, it's taped, your voices are too loud.You were shouting at us, that's why you can't hear us.Now, what's my point of order?

We are not discussing the merits yet of the amendment.No one's curtailing your rights because we're not there yet.Ang pinagbobotohan natin ngayon, kung pwedeng i -take up sa floor o hindi, yun ang i -take up natin.And the arguments have already been laid out.And Senator Pangilinan and I were together in 2009, where we had debates here where Senator Enrile did not even allow amendments.And then we voted.

It depends on every issue, Madam Chair.There's no specific rule of the amount of time.I was asking the gentleman about certain issues in one resolution.He refused for further interpolation and said it's time to vote.They were the majority.So Madam Chair, we're here, we're willing, Senator Maricoleta is ready to take questions.

Ang pinagbobotohan lang po natin ngayon, simple lang, whether or not we can take, whether or not the proposal to amend the rules is in order.The specific amendment, who will benefit, how will benefit, etc., we support the right of Senator Pangilinan to ask questions, but we're not there yet.So again, may I raise the previous question, Madam Chair, the point of order, the parliamentary reason.

Go ahead.Madam President, the Senate President invoked Section 136, Paragraph 2.If we will read this Madam President, it is very simple.This is Section 136, Paragraph 2.is a special provision in precisely amending our rules.In section 24, this is a general rule.

If you notice, it presupposes that we will take up all the bills referred to that committee.Its function is general.136, second paragraph, is a special provision.In the principle of the law, that is a special provision.takes precedence over a general provision.It will not even take one day because this is not a new motion.

It was already moved last May 11.So that is even more than one day.So who is talking about one day here?And unless we respect Section 136, it talks about the rules may also be amended.So this takes precedence over Section 24.

Madam President.

Thank you, Senator Marcoleta.We recognize Senator Riz Antiveros.

Salamat, Madam President.Meron din po akong substantive na interpolation sa motion ngayong araw na nire -raise o itatalakayan ni Senator Marcoleta.Yung text na pinamudmod ni Senate President sa atin ngayong uma, ngayong hapon.Pero, una, gusto ko pong segundahanMadam President.the motion Sino ang gagumawa nun?

Dapat ang Committee on Rules.Na -initiate na po ang prosesong iyon alinsunod sa Section 24.Eh hindi pa nga po naku -constitute ang Committee on Rules.Wala pa nga pong minority contingent sa Committee on Rules.So wala pang body na pwedeng ibalik yung unang motion ni Senator Marcoleta sa plenary....kaya ako sinusugundahan ang sinabi ni Sen. Pangilinan.

Ito pong motion na gustong talakayan ni Sen. Marco Letta at pinamudmod ni Sen. President sa atin.Bagong motion po siya.Kung kaya't nag -a -apply po ang Rule Section 136 na kailangan bigyan ng isang araw pa...Pagkatapos ito, i -move para talakain.And tama si Senator Pangilinan, sa lunes pa po yon, Madam President.

Salamat, Madam President.

Madam President, without giving meaning to anything, ito pong mahirap kasi kung wala po tayong legal background dito.Kaya sinasabi ko na nga po, napakas - hindi po bagong motion ito eh.

in this about the motion because i think a lot more may eleven minute when i put it on the side of a motion point of order on the home in and say that i think a lot more than that i think a lot more than that i think a lot more than that i think a lot more than that i think a lot more than that i think a lot more than that i think a lot more than that i think a lot more than that

Session is resumed.Madam Chair.Senator Cayetano.

I'm listening to the two Senators and as I mentioned earlier, let's not use the term, etc.And I see the point of Senator Riza, but I'm also listening to Senator Marcoleta.In the book, the love language is different, but I don't think they're meant to be any offense.Having said that, we're only discussing whether we will take up the amendment or not.And we have exhausted already all the arguments.This is a simple motion, so I move that we divide the House.

May I reiterate my motion?Then we can go into the merits and they can try to convince us whether or not we agree.So the motion is to take up the amendment to our rules.as proposed by Senator Marcoleta.The objection is that it is not in order because we did not follow our own rules.

Madam Chair, Madam President.Before that.

Madam President.

Yes, we recognize Senator Erwin Tulfo.

Madam President, my question is, why is the majority in such a hurry to tackle this motion?that's allowing a senator for justifiable reasons to attend and participate in the session through teleconference, whereas in Rule 14, Section 41 under B, it is convenient to hold a session through teleconference, videoconference, or other reliable forms of remote or electronic means using appropriate information and communications technology system due to force majeure, Madam President.or the occurrence of a national emergency.I guess, Madam President, this justifiable reason, what is that?Does that fall under force majeure or does it fall under national emergency, Madam President?My question is why are we in so hurry?

Why are they, the majority, in a hurry to tackle this motion and divide the House, Madam President?I need, we need answers in the minority.Or is it because, Madam Chair, they are in a hurry because of news reports?that probably two of our colleagues might land in jail this weekend.Is that the reason why?Is that the reason why they have to have this inserted, this section 41C, para makaboto po kung sino man niyong makukulong dahil sa announcement ng Sadang Ombudsman na may malalabas po ang warrant ng ilan sa mga kasama natin, Madam President.

That is my question, Madam Chair.

The gentleman is out of order because his question can be discussed in the actual motion, can be discussed after the motion whether we should take it up.We take offense that he will give such a color.It's just like us saying, are you afraid if we have the hearing on the blue ribbon on flood control, you will be mentioned.You do not make that kind of statements here in the Senate because you assume good faith from everyone.That rule, may 11 pahu yon.So Madam Chair, I move that we divide the House.

And the voting will be done via viva voce.

Madam President.

Minority leader.

I move to adjourn or a quorum call.That is a higher precedence, Madam President.

So I only see the minority leader.representing the minority, the others had left.

Madam Chair, we will not object but for the record, they scampered out and left the minority leader instead of discussing the rule.We are not evenand then that was their allegation I am not debating and we will indeed adjourn parliamentary inquiry.

We had a quorum.

Yes.

Yes, Madam President.When a minority walks out, does the quorum disappear?We started with a quorum.It doesn't matter if they walk out.I think we still have the quorum.

Madam President, once there is a quorum call, you have to call the roll.Even if everyone is present, or there was a lack earlier, or there was a motion to dispense, whatever that is.

Not upon a situation, Madam President, when they readily and willingly walk out.That is not covered by our rule, Madam President.

As reiterated by the Senate President, and as conveyed by the Minority Leader, former Senate President, the rule states that the motion to adjourn takes precedence, and not taking sides, and we will adjourn session until 5 p .m.on Monday.June 1st, 2026.June 2nd?

1st?

June 1st.

The birthday of Senator Lacson.So we will have cooler heads.

Okay.Hi there.

Thank you.Thank you.

Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.