MANILA — Sen. Panfilo “Ping” Lacson said citing foreign conflicts as “force majeure” to justify remote participation and voting in Senate proceedings would be an “unforced error.”

Lacson made the remark in response to a social media post by Sen. Robinhood Padilla, who asked whether the war in the Middle East and tensions involving China and Taiwan could be considered force majeure.

“Hindi po ito ‘force majeure’. Iyan po ay ‘UNFORCED ERROR’ (This is not force majeure. This is an unforced error),” Lacson said in a post on X.

The senator reiterated his opposition to proposals allowing senators to participate and vote remotely, saying the Senate rules only permit virtual participation during force majeure events or a national emergency.

According to Lacson, the rules allow remote participation only under unexpected or uncontrollable circumstances that prevent senators from physically attending sessions.

He also said the Senate minority bloc would continue questioning the majority’s effort to allow online participation and remote voting in Senate proceedings and may elevate the matter to the Supreme Court if necessary.

“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,” he said in an interview on ANC’s “Headstart.”

“If the majority commits grave abuse of discretion, we’ll have the option to bring the case before the Supreme Court,” he added.

Lacson earlier questioned the majority bloc’s move to take up and vote on a motion filed by Sen. Rodante Marcoleta that would allow online participation in Senate proceedings.

He argued that the motion violated the Rules of the Senate and bypassed the chamber’s committee system.

Citing Section 24 of the Senate rules, Lacson said matters referred to committees must first be discussed and acted upon before being reported to the plenary. He noted that Marcoleta’s motion had already been referred to the Committee on Rules, which has yet to be constituted following the leadership change on May 11.

Lacson also disputed the application of Section 136, which Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano cited as basis for amending Senate rules through a motion presented at least one day before consideration.

According to Lacson, Section 136 no longer applies because the motion had already been referred to the Committee on Rules.

He added that the Supreme Court could intervene if there is grave abuse of discretion committed by a government officer, agency or department.

“So 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.

Lacson also said the minority bloc is considering another walkout from session proceedings if needed.

He recalled that the minority’s walkout last Tuesday allowed Minority Leader Vicente Sotto III to remain on the floor and move for adjournment due to the lack of quorum.

“The majority cannot force the adoption of a motion without quorum. So we may also do that again – the minority leader will be left on the floor to question the quorum, a repeat of what happened last Tuesday,” he said.

The senator likewise rejected comparisons between the remote voting proposal and the case of former senator Leila de Lima.

Lacson said a resolution he co-authored with former senator Franklin Drilon only allowed De Lima to participate in committee hearings and plenary sessions, but not to vote remotely.

“That’s all there was to it. Participate. Hindi kasama she can vote,” he said.