Marcoleta’s push to compel Romualdez's attendance backfires as Lacson raises possible House inquiry into his SOCE

Senator Rodante Marcoleta’s insistence to compel former House speaker Martin Romualdez’s attendance at the Senate flood control probe boomeranged on him on Tuesday. This, after Senator Ping Lacson suggested that the Senate could also break the longstanding inter-parliamentary courtesy if it were to oblige him to face a possible House inquiry into the “anomalies” in his Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) in the 2025 polls. 

Lacson asserted this in a nearly one-hour-long privilege speech as he pushed back against critics who accused him of making up flimsy excuses to keep Romualdez from being invited to the hearing of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, which he heads.

Recall that Marcoleta has repeatedly demanded that Lacson summon Romualdez at the Senate inquiry, notwithstanding the so-called “inter-chamber courtesy.” This practice has long been observed among members of Congress, allowing them to extend invitations to their counterparts, though they cannot compel attendance because the House and the Senate are coequal.

“Suppose we follow such ludicrous suggestion made by one of our colleagues, what will happen is that former speaker Romualdez will become the first case to defy the prevailing interparliamentary courtesy,” Lacson argued.

“Now, if any of our fellow senators were to be invited or subpoenaed to a House hearing—for example, the House Committee on Justice invited or subpoenaed our colleague Senator Marcoleta, if hypothetically, there is an investigation in the House regarding his allegedly anomalous Statement of Contributions and Expenditures—are the Senate leadership and Senator Marcoleta willing to disregard the interparliamentary courtesy that has long been observed in Congress? he continued.

Lacson was referring to Marcoleta’s admission that he did not divulge the names of some of his campaign donors in the 2025 polls, per their request for anonymity. The Commission on Elections initially flagged this as an election offense, but later absolved him, citing a lack of evidence.

In response, delivered shortly after Lacson’s speech, Marcoleta said he is willing to face a possible House probe into his campaign spending “with or without invitation.” 

“They just had to suggest to me that they wanted me there. I will go there, Mr. President,” he countered.

Marcoleta has repeatedly suggested Romualdez’s involvement in the flood control anomalies, which the former House leader vehemently denied.

The opposition senator also accused Lacson of deliberately ignoring critical leads, pointing to the culpability of Romualdez and other high-ranking officials in Malacanang in the alleged kickback scheme. 

Lacson has long denied shielding Romualdez, asserting that while there is no concrete proof linking him to the scandal, he is not yet off the hook and can be invited to the next hearings.

However, in accordance with the inter-chamber courtesy, he pointed out that the committee cannot force Romualdez to attend the probe, unless he does so of his own volition. 

“The committee extended invitations to Representative Romualdez and other members of the House of Representatives whose names were mentioned during the hearings through the Office of the current Speaker, in keeping with the established inter-chamber courtesy…It must be emphasized that no member of Congress has ever been subjected to a subpoena by either chamber. Such an act would risk undermining the balance and mutual respect that define bicameral relations,” he stressed.

Lacson suspended the flood control probe pending the majority’s approval of the BRC’s partial report, which recommends that Senators Chiz Escudero, Jinggoy Estrada, Joel Villanueva, and Romualdez be subject to further investigation following allegations that they received millions of kickbacks from flood control projects. 

However, as of Tuesday, the report still has two signatures short of the required number for plenary considerations.

Marcoleta has remained adamant about not signing the report, raising concerns that Lacson may prematurely terminate the investigation once the report mustered enough backing.