Members of the Senate minority bloc walked out of Tuesday night’s plenary session to protest what they described as an attempt by the majority to rush changes to Senate rules that would allow senators to attend and participate in sessions remotely.
The tension erupted after Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano moved to put to a vote the proposal of Sen. Rodante Marcoleta to amend Rule XIV of the Senate rules. The amendment seeks to allow a senator, for justifiable reasons, to attend and participate in plenary sessions through teleconference, video conference, or other remote or electronic means using appropriate communications technology.
Marcoleta first raised the proposal on May 11, the same day Sen. Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa appeared in plenary after seven months of absence to vote in the leadership change that removed Sen. Vicente Sotto III as Senate President and installed Cayetano.
The proposal had been referred to the Committee on Rules, but minority senators questioned whether the chamber could already act on it, arguing that the panel had not yet been formally constituted.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson said the Senate could not proceed because the Rules committee only had an acting chairman in Sen. Joel Villanueva, who is also the acting majority leader.
Sen. Francis Pangilinan objected to putting the matter to a vote, saying the minority still had questions, including who would benefit from the proposed rule change.
Sotto, now minority leader, also questioned the rush, saying the issue should first be taken up at the committee level. He noted that as minority leader, he is an ex-officio member of the Rules committee.
Cayetano maintained that since the committee had not yet been constituted, its acting chairman could bring the matter directly to the plenary under Senate rules.
Sen. Risa Hontiveros disagreed, saying there was still no proper committee body, including a minority contingent, that could decide to return Marcoleta’s motion to the plenary. She said the motion being pushed on the floor was effectively a new motion.
Marcoleta countered that his proposal was not new, as he had already made the motion on May 11.
As emotions rose, Senate President Pro Tempore Loren Legarda, who was presiding over the session, suspended proceedings to ease tensions.
When the session resumed, Sen. Erwin Tulfo questioned the phrase “justifiable reasons” in the proposed amendment. He asked whether such reasons would fall under force majeure or a national emergency, which are already cited in existing rules on remote sessions.
Tulfo also questioned the timing of the move, citing reports that cases could be filed by the Ombudsman against two senators. He asked whether the rule change was being rushed so that any senator who may be detained could still vote remotely.
Cayetano called Tulfo “out of order,” saying his questions should be raised during the proper discussion on the motion. He also objected to what he described as an attempt to give color to the proposal, insisting that it had not been rushed because it had been raised as early as May 11.
While Tulfo was speaking, Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri urged members of the minority bloc to leave the session hall, apparently in protest. Only Sotto remained in the plenary.
Sotto then moved to adjourn or conduct a quorum call, saying the motion would supersede all other motions. Legarda later adjourned the session until 5 pm of June 1, 2026, citing the lack of quorum after the minority walkout.
In a statement, the minority bloc condemned what it called an attempt to fast-track a major change in Senate rules while several minority senators still wanted to speak and raise questions on the floor.
The bloc said the timing of the proposal deserved public scrutiny, especially amid questions on whether the change was meant to allow Dela Rosa or other senators facing possible legal action to continue voting remotely.
“What happened on the floor looked less like orderly deliberation,” the minority said, adding that the matter should undergo proper debate instead of being pushed through by what it called the “tyranny of the majority.”
“If the proposal is truly defensible, then let it pass through the proper route,” the minority added.