MANILA – Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano defended the Majority bloc’s decision to put to a vote a procedural question on whether the Senate could take up a proposed amendment allowing remote participation in plenary sessions, stressing that the chamber had not yet discussed the substance of the measure.

The clarification came after tensions during the May 26 Senate plenary session, which ended in a walkout by members of the Minority bloc, leaving Senate Minority Leader Vicente Sotto III to move for adjournment.

Cayetano said the Minority senators left the session instead of engaging in the discussion on the procedural matter.

Cayetano said for the record, “they scampered out and left the Minority Leader instead of discussing the rule. We are not even discussing the rule yet. And then ganon na y’ung allegation nila.”

He also responded to criticisms raised by Minority senators regarding alleged “railroading” and “strong-arming,” saying proper decorum should be observed in the chamber.

“You do not make that kind of statement here in the Senate because you assume good faith from everyone,” he added.

The issue stemmed from a proposal by Sen. Rodante Marcoleta seeking to amend Senate rules to allow remote participation in sessions. Cayetano said what was being tackled was only the preliminary question of whether the plenary could take up the proposal.

During the session, Cayetano cited Section 136 of the Senate Rules, arguing that the plenary may decide by majority vote whether to consider a motion to amend the rules even without committee endorsement.

“If you look at Section 136 of our Rules, you do not need the endorsement, nor the forwarding of the Committee of Rules for the amendment of the rules… right now that’s irrelevant because we have given back to the plenary the proposal,” he said.

Senate Pro Tempore Loren Legarda, who presided over the session, agreed with the interpretation, saying, “Very clear. Thank you, Senate President.”

However, Senators Panfilo Lacson and Francis Pangilinan questioned the motion, citing Section 24 of the rules and arguing that the matter should first undergo committee deliberation before plenary action.

Cayetano reiterated that the vote was not yet on the substance of Marcoleta’s proposal, but only on whether it could be taken up on the floor.

“We’re talking about a motion to amend the rules… the plenary is more supreme over the committee. So we didn’t disregard the committee,” he said.

He added that the earlier referral to the Committee on Rules was intended to give senators time to study the proposal but did not prevent the plenary from acting directly on it.

As objections continued, Cayetano moved to divide the house and resolve the procedural issue through a vote.

“In this democratic institution, when we disagree, we vote. When we have rules, we follow the rules… So why are we using unparliamentary language to express or try to provoke the kind of argument we don’t want between the Majority and Minority? How do we resolve that? By voting,” he said.

Cayetano also clarified that the proposal had been introduced on May 11 and maintained that the Majority acted within parliamentary rules in exercising the Senate’s authority to settle procedural questions through a vote.