Senators Panfilo ‘Ping’ Lacson (right) and Risa Hontiveros during a plenary session at the Senate on May 19, 2026. (Courtesy: Senate of the Philippines)
The Senate minority bloc is prepared to stage another plenary session walkout if necessary to block the majority’s push for remote legislative voting, Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson said on Thursday.
Meanwhile, Senator Risa Hontiveros rejected Sen. Robinhood Padilla’s claim that ongoing global conflicts and climate threats constitute legal grounds to allow senators to work and vote remotely.
“They cannot force the adoption of the resolution on the floor if there is no quorum. We will do the exact same thing, leaving the minority leader behind, a repeat of what happened last Tuesday,” Lacson stressed.
The strategic absence of the opposition members allowed Minority Leader Vicente Sotto III to remain in the plenary and successfully move for an immediate adjournment.
The veteran lawmaker previously argued that the push for virtual participation would likely fail because Senate rules restrict online attendance strictly to national emergencies or uncontrollable circumstances that physically prevent the senators’ physical appearance.
“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,” said Lacson.
“If the majority commits grave abuse of discretion, we’ll have the option to bring the case before the Supreme Court,” Lacson warned.
He added that Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano’s reliance on Section 136 to amend internal rules via a one-day notice is invalid because the matter is already bound to the unorganized rules committee.
“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.
Padilla, in a social media post, inquired if the war in the Middle East and tensions between China and Taiwan could be classified as force majeure which could justify their non-appearance at the Senate sessions.
Padilla suggested the Middle East war, the potential fallout from the China-Taiwan conflict, and the upcoming El Niño phenomenon as instances of force majeure.
“Typhoons, flood, earthquake, war, terrorism, and according to the global warning, a severe La Niña is coming because of the severe El Niño. I thought the previous majority was proactive?” Padilla said.
He argued that these external crises and natural disruptions are uncontrollable events that justify a proposed amendment by the Senate majority bloc to permit online participation.
Under the current rules of the upper chamber, remote attendance and voting are strictly restricted to national emergencies or force majeure situations that physically prevent lawmakers from assembling.
In dismissing Padilla’s argument, Hontiveros asserted that international crises like the war in the Middle East actually require lawmakers to show up physically to address economic impacts such as rising oil prices.
“With all due respect, those are not force majeure… we should be physically showing up and doing our jobs. Not like what has been happening for the past three weeks, where it feels like we are playing tag over issues that primarily concern only ourselves,” she said.
The dispute over remote work triggered intense friction within the chamber, culminating in a walkout by minority lawmakers who questioned the sudden urgency of the rule change.
Minority bloc lawmakers alleged that the proposed modification is a veiled attempt to grant special treatment to certain colleagues.