The move to allow remote participation and online voting in the Senate has sparked significant debate because of its political implications.
Supposedly, any senator can move for an amendment of the rules sans controversy. He can either course it through the Committee on Rules for thorough study, debate and drafting, or do it via direct motion in the plenary by presenting the proposed amendment to the body at least one day before it is considered.
Certainly, revising the rules should be a nonissue. In fact, the Senate did just that during the Covid-19 lockdown to accommodate online participation for those prevented from physically going to the august chamber. In the case of Partylist Representative Leila de Lima, the Court denied her request for teleconferencing because her incarceration did not fall under the legal definition of force majeure or a national emergency.
Indeed, virtual attendance rules adopted during the Covid-19 pandemic were intended for public health lockdowns or natural disasters, and not an individual’s legal detention.
This is why the massive uproar over Marcoleta’s push to allow remote attendance and voting for a “justifiable reason” came as a surprise to many. What should have been a routine motion was met with vehement resistance from the minority bloc, causing its members to walk out of the session and prevent the majority from approving the proposal due to a lack of quorum.
Contrary to the narratives peddled by both camps, the issue has nothing to do with propriety, or the lack of it, but relates directly to the issue of control over Senate proceedings.
Right now, the majority has 13 members.
While Bato has gone into hiding, at least two others potentially might not be able to participate fully because of their pending cases, which are expected to result in their arrest at any time. When this happens, the majority would have only 10 members, which is fewer than the 11 belonging to the minority group.
On the one hand, this is not really significant. With respect to the election of the Senate President, the expulsion of a member or the overriding of the President’s veto, a majority vote of the entire Senate membership — meaning at least 13 votes — is still required. So with 11 members, the minority cannot have its way or even get back the Senate presidency.
On the other hand, this development has a huge impact with respect to the ordinary business of the Senate, such as the approval of committee reports, bills, resolutions and motions. This is because these matters require only a simple majority, which means votes cast by those members physically present in the assembly, provided there is a quorum.
So, if the 11 minority members are always present, they can block a lot of initiatives presented by the majority in the plenary, most notably those relating to the flood-control project controversy.
This is actually a unique situation. The majority retains the Senate President, but control is exercised by the other group. Given such ambivalence, expect a number of horse-trading activities to take place. And then some.
