There is nothing wrong with debating proposed changes to the Senate Rules – including those on remote participation – but there is something very wrong with attempts to steamroll or “fastbreak” the process, Sen. Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson said Saturday.
Lacson stressed this in response to a question Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano raised in a social media livestream Friday, on whether it is wrong to discuss changes to the rules.
“Nothing is wrong about debating on any motion, resolution or measure. What is wrong is ignoring our own rules and parliamentary procedures by stopping the debates to railroad the adoption of a motion already referred to the Committee on Rules,” he said on X.
In Filipino: Lacson: Hindi Mali ang Pagdedebate sa Rules, Pero Mali ang Pagpipilit na Wala sa Hulog
Cayetano, in a Facebook Live session Friday, questioned if it is wrong to change the rules, following a heated exchange last Tuesday over Sen. Rodante Marcoleta’s May 11 motion to amend the Rules of the Senate to allow remote participation.
He also took issue with Lacson and other members of the Senate’s minority bloc, whom he accused of misleading their supporters because of their claim that they had no chance to ask questions or explain.
Lacson, who took part in the minority bloc’s walkout last May 26, reiterated that the majority bloc tried to force the issue when it moved to tackle and vote in plenary the motion to allow online participation.
He said this runs contrary to the Rules of the Senate and the chamber’s committee system, as Section 24 of the Rules of the Senate – that the committees shall discuss, decide and submit a report on all matters referred to them – applies in the case of Marcoleta’s motion. He noted the motion was already referred to the Committee on Rules, which remains unconstituted following a leadership change last May 11.
Lacson added Section 136 of the Rules, which Cayetano cited as basis for amending the rules through a motion presented at least a day before consideration, does not apply due to the prior referral to the Committee on Rules.
The minority members walked out after Cayetano insisted on dividing the house and putting the matter to a vote.
“We can amend our rules but we must follow the procedure. They wanted to amend the rules fastbreak-style. And we have a committee system. Congress cannot function without the committees,” Lacson stressed in an interview on DZBB radio on Friday.
*****
Lacson: Hindi Mali ang Pagdedebate sa Rules, Pero Mali ang Pagpipilit na Wala sa Hulog
Walang mali sa pagdedebate sa mga panukalang pagbabago sa Senate Rules—kabilang ang sa remote participation—ngunit may mali sa mga hakbang na wala sa hulog at tila isinasantabi o “fina-fastbreak” ang proseso, giit ni Sen. Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson nitong Sabado.
Ito ang tugon ni Lacson sa tanong ni Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano sa isang social media livestream noong Biyernes na kung mali bang talakayin ang pagbabago sa mga patakaran.
“Nothing is wrong about debating on any motion, resolution or measure. What is wrong is ignoring our own rules and parliamentary procedures by stopping the debates to railroad the adoption of a motion already referred to the Committee on Rules,” aniya sa X.
Sa Facebook Live session noong Biyernes, kinuwestiyon ni Cayetano kung mali bang baguhin ang rules, kasunod ng mainit na pagtatalo noong Martes kaugnay ng May 11 motion ni Sen. Rodante Marcoleta na amyendahan ang Senate Rules para payagan ang remote participation.
Pinuna din niya si Lacson at iba pang miyembro ng Senate minority bloc, na inakusahan niyang nililinlang ang kanilang mga tagasuporta dahil sa kanilang pahayag na hindi sila nabigyan ng pagkakataong magtanong o magpaliwanag.
Iginiit ni Lacson, na lumahok sa walkout ng minority bloc noong Mayo 26, na tinangkang ipilit ng majority bloc ang isyu nang itulak nitong talakayin at botohan sa plenaryo ang motion para payagan ang online participation.
Aniya, taliwas ito sa Rules of the Senate at sa committee system ng kamara, dahil sa ilalim ng Section 24 ng Senate Rules, ang mga komite ang tatalakay, magpapasya, at magpapasa ng ulat sa mga bagay na naipasa sa kanila. Dagdag niya, ang motion ay naipasa na sa Committee on Rules, na nananatiling hindi pa naitutukod matapos ang pagbabago sa liderato noong May 11.
Idinagdag pa ni Lacson na ang Section 136 ng Rules na binanggit ni Cayetano bilang batayan sa pag-amyenda ng rules sa pamamagitan ng motion na ihahain isang araw bago ang pagtalakay ay hindi angkop dahil sa naunang referral sa Committee on Rules.
Nag-walkout sa sesyon ang minority members matapos igiit ni Cayetano ang pag-divide ng House at pagpapaboto sa usapin.
“Pwedeng amyendahan pero sundan natin ang procedure. Gusto niya amyendahan pero fastbreak… Kaya nga may committee system. Ang Kongreso di maka-function without committees,” giit ni Lacson noong Biyernes.
*****
     |    |   |
Invoke the principle of harmonious construction. By reading the Senate Rules as a cohesive whole, Section 136 provides the authority to amend, while Section 24 enforces the due process of how that amendment is vetted if it has entered the committee pipeline.
Even if the committee is empty, harmonious construction dictates that the Senate must still act in a way that respects the spirit of due process underlying both rules. This leads to two harmonized pathways the Senate can take:
Pathway A (Fix the prerequisite first): Instead of using Section 136 to bypass Section 24 entirely, the majority should use its numbers to first elect a chairperson and members to the Committee on Rules. Once the committee exists, Section 24 is satisfied, and Section 136 can be executed cleanly.
Pathway B (The Plenary assumes the committee’s role): If the Senate chooses to vote immediately under Section 136, the plenary must transform itself into a “Committee of the Whole.” By doing this, the open floor satisfies the vetted deliberation required by Section 24, while executing the voting mechanism of Section 136.
Senator Marcoleta is invoking the legal maxim lex specialis derogat legi generali (a special law repeals a general law).His argument posits that Section 136 is the “special provision” because it deals exclusively with Amendments to the Rules, whereas Section 24 is a “general provision” because it covers the routine referral of any matter to committees. In his view, because the topic at hand is specifically an amendment, the specific rule for amendments (Section 136) should override the general rule for committee referrals (Section 24).However, applying the principle of harmonious construction reveals flaws in treating Section 136 as an absolute “trump card.” Here is how the principle would analyze and resolve this specific “Special vs. General” conflict:1. Reframing “Special” vs. “General”Harmonious construction requires looking at context. Which provision is “special” actually shifts depending on the procedural stage the Senate is in.Marcoleta’s View: Section 136 is special because it governs the subject matter (Amendments).Harmonized View: Section 24 becomes the “special” provision regarding the procedural status of a bill. Once the Senate plenary voluntarily refers a measure to a committee, Section 24 becomes the specific rule governing that measure’s life cycle until the committee discharges it.The Flaw: If Section 136 is treated as supreme simply because it mentions “Amendments,” it would imply that amendments are immune to all other Senate rules (like decorum, debate time, or quorum), which creates an absurdity. Harmonious construction dictates that Section 136 grants the power to amend, but Section 24 governs the process if that power is exercised through a committee.2. The “Substantive vs. Procedural” BalanceTo harmonize the two, courts (or the Senate body) would distinguish between the nature of the rules:Section 136 (Substantive Authority): This rule grants the Senate the substantive right to change its own rules by a majority vote. It answers the question: “Does the Senate have the power to do this?”Section 24 (Procedural Due Process): This rule ensures order and study. It answers the question: “How must the Senate treat a matter it has entrusted to a committee?”The Harmonized Conclusion: Section 136 cannot be used to bypass Section 24 retroactively. The Senate had the option to use Section 136 to debate the amendment immediately (bypassing the committee initially). However, because the Senate chose to refer it to a committee first, it triggered the “special” procedural protections of Section 24. Harmonious construction says you cannot invoke a general power (Sec. 136) to break a specific procedural commitment (Sec. 24) you already made.3. Preventing “Surplusage” (Useless Rules)A key test of harmonious construction is: “Does this interpretation make another rule useless?”If Marcoleta is right: If Section 136 always overrides Section 24, then the Senate Rules Committee becomes irrelevant for amendments. The majority could refer an amendment to the committee one day and, if they dislike the delay, invoke Section 136 the next day to yank it back. This renders Section 24 “surplusage” (redundant or meaningless) regarding amendments.Harmonized Ruling: To ensure Section 24 retains meaning, it must be interpreted as a binding “pit stop.” Once a measure enters the “pit” (Committee), it must exit properly (Committee Report) before it returns to the “race track” (Plenary), regardless of whether the “car” is an amendment (Sec. 136) or a regular bill.Summary: The Harmonious Application Argument Interpretation Marcoleta’s Claim Section 136 is King: Because it is the “Amendment Rule,” it ignores the “Committee Rule.”Harmonious Reply Section 136 is the Engine, Section 24 is the Traffic Light: Section 136 gives the car (the amendment) the power to move, but Section 24 is the red light that was turned on when the measure was referred to committee. You cannot use the power of the engine to ignore the traffic light.
Senator Ping, please join me to your team, I can help.