On Tuesday night, May 26, members of the Senate minority bloc walked out of the plenary during deliberations on a proposed amendment that would allow senators to attend sessions and vote remotely under “justifiable reasons.” The walkout later resulted in the adjournment of session after the Senate failed to maintain quorum.
The incident highlighted how deeply polarized the Senate has become following the May 11 leadership reshuffle that replaced Senator Vicente “Tito” Sotto III with Alan Peter Cayetano as Senate President. The transition split the chamber into two competing blocs: a new majority led by Cayetano, made up of 13 senators openly aligned with the Duterte camp, and an 11-member minority bloc led by Sotto III, which opposed the leadership change.
A procedural fight turns political
The proposal at the center of the clash came from Senator Rodante Marcoleta of the majority bloc, who proposed amending Senate rules to allow senators to participate in sessions remotely.
Current Senate rules allow sessions to be conducted through teleconference, video conference, or other remote means only “due to force majeure—situations that can neither be anticipated nor controlled—or the occurrence of a national emergency,” as stated under Rule XIV, Section 41 of the Rules of the Senate. The provision was adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic for situations that prevented the Senate from convening physically in the session hall.
Concerns were raised regarding the overlap between the proposed rule change and pending legal proceedings involving several members of the majority bloc, especially because the proposal was introduced after majority bloc Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa appeared after being absent for months from both Senate sessions and the public eye, following the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrant against him in connection with the Duterte administration’s war on drugs.
These suspicions further intensified after Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla announced plans to pursue plunder complaints against majority bloc Senators Jinggoy Estrada, Joel Villanueva, and Marcoleta over their alleged involvement in the flood control controversy. Allowing senators to participate remotely could significantly affect future proceedings, particularly the impeachment trial of VP Duterte, where individual votes could prove decisive.
During the debates, minority bloc Senator Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan questioned the scope and intended beneficiaries of the amendment, saying: “We are not able to ask questions as to who will benefit from the amendment to the rules [...] Is this rule for Senator Bato, who is not here?”
How the walkout unfolded
The dispute escalated throughout the evening as senators clashed over both the substance of the amendment and the process used to bring it to the floor.
Cayetano and the majority bloc, however, insisted that Section 136 of the Senate Rules allows the plenary itself to determine, by majority vote, whether to consider a proposed amendment immediately even without committee endorsement.
They also cited former Senator Leila de Lima’s case, in which allies sought to allow her remote participation while detained. The minority bloc rejected the comparison, clarifying that the proposals were filed through formal resolutions— not floor motions—and were never approved by the Senate. De Lima herself likewise dismissed the parallel, arguing that no “railroading or shortcuts” were used to accommodate a request that “was never granted.”
The majority bloc’s move was further questioned by Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson from the minority who argued that the Committee on Rules had not yet been formally reconstituted after the May 11 leadership reshuffle, meaning the amendment should not have been returned to plenary for debate. Other minority senators also argued that previous amendments to Senate rules had traditionally been coursed through formal resolutions rather than floor motions, with Senator Erwin Tulfo asking: “Why are they, the majority, in a hurry to tackle this motion and divide the House?”
Tensions further escalated after minority Senator Risa Hontiveros questioned the handling of the amendment, to which Senator Marcoleta responded with an insulting remark, “Ito ang mahirap kasi kung wala po tayong legal background dito.”
The exchange prompted the minority bloc to raise a point of order accusing Marcoleta of making an ad hominem attack—directing personal criticism at a fellow senator—instead of addressing the issue under debate. Senate President Pro Tempore Loren Legarda later temporarily suspended the session as tensions rose on the floor.
After the session resumed, the minority bloc began leaving the plenary one by one. Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri urged colleagues to walk out alongside him, later describing the proceedings as a “travesty” of Senate rules. Only Minority Leader Sotto III remained inside the chamber to formally move for an adjournment. The walkout had reduced attendance below the constitutional quorum requirement, effectively halting proceedings and forcing the Senate to suspend the session, with resumption scheduled on June 1.
A quorum is the minimum number of members required for a legislative body to conduct official business such as voting. Under the 1987 Constitution, this is a majority of each House; in the 24-member Senate, at least 13 senators must be present. Without quorum, the Senate cannot proceed with debate or voting and may only adjourn until enough members return.
In a joint statement after the walkout, the minority bloc defended its decision, stating the majority tried to “rush a major change in the Senate Rules” despite unresolved procedural questions. “We walked out because what happened on the floor looked less like orderly deliberation,” the statement read, warning against the “tyranny of the majority,” adding that “we owe it to the people who voted for us to do our mandate.”
In a statement posted on Thursday, May 28, majority bloc Senator Robin Padilla pushed back, arguing that ongoing global conflicts could constitute force majeure circumstances. Citing the war in the Middle East, rising China-Taiwan tensions, and warnings of an approaching El Niño, Padilla asked, “Hindi po ba ito force majeure?”
Minority senators rejected the argument: Tulfo questioned Padillia’s interpretation of the term, asking how El Niño would justify a senator’s absence from work. “[...] El Niño–but I don’t know how that shall affect whether a senator doesn’t have to come in because it’s hot?”
Hontiveros likewise argued that such crises instead underscore more than ever the need for lawmakers to report to work in person, “[...] ‘yung epektong oil crisis na ‘yan sa ating mga kawani, ‘yan na nga ang dahilan na dapat physically pumapasok kami at ginagawa ang aming trabaho.”
On the same note, Hontiveros further emphasized how the abrupt Senate rule changes have pushed back the passing of urgent legislation, stating: “Ang daming nakabinbin na mga panukala para sa mamamayang Pilipino na dapat ginagawa namin in-person.”
Moving forward
The Senate walkout highlighted deeper concerns over institutional accountability, raising questions about whether checks and balances can remain independent amid political theatre. Such protests are not new: in 2001, during the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada, the House prosecution panel walked out after senator-judges voted against opening the controversial “second envelope” allegedly containing evidence of ill-gotten wealth—a moment that intensified public outrage and triggered EDSA II.
Like the Estrada trial, the current controversy has raised questions about the Senate’s credibility and commitment to accountability. In a statement, De La Salle Philippines (DLSP) warned against institutions being used “to protect a powerful few from accountability,” and called for a renewed commitment to truth, justice, and ethical public service.
Ultimately, the Senate now faces a reckoning far bigger than a procedural dispute. If the chamber continues to prioritize political alliances over principle, it risks reinforcing the belief that institutions exist not to check power, but to protect it. If history offers any lesson, it is that when public trust in institutions collapses, the reckoning often comes sooner rather than later.
