Veteran Senator Says New Leadership Has Legal Basis, Credits Escudero for Restoring Senate Operations
By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — Senator Panfilo Lacson has dismissed allegations that the recent Senate leadership change amounted to an illegal takeover, insisting that the reorganization was carried out in accordance with constitutional provisions, Supreme Court jurisprudence, and long-standing Senate precedents.
Lacson said senators opposing the leadership transition remain free to enter the Senate and hold activities in their offices, but questioned the practicality and legality of continuing committee hearings after committee chairmanships had already been declared vacant and new leaders elected.
“Senators cannot be prevented from entering the Senate. They have their offices there. But the reality is that new committee chairpersons have already been elected,” Lacson said.
The senator noted that logistical challenges could also confront any attempt to conduct independent hearings, particularly with many Senate personnel operating under work-from-home arrangements following the leadership reshuffle.
Escudero Credited for Ensuring Quorum
Lacson also pushed back against speculation that former Senate President Francis Escudero was pressured or persuaded to attend the session that ultimately produced a quorum and paved the way for the Senate reorganization.
According to Lacson, no senator personally convinced Escudero to attend.
“As far as I know, nobody convinced him. He carefully weighed the implications and consequences of his decision,” Lacson said.
He added that Escudero’s attendance reflected concern for the institution rather than any political deal or concession.
“We are grateful because he put the Senate first,” Lacson said.
Lacson revealed that senators learned only around 1 p.m. on the day of the session that Escudero intended to attend, allowing leaders to proceed with plans to convene the chamber later that afternoon.
‘No Deals, No Conditions’
The senator likewise denied rumors that negotiations were underway to secure the support of additional senators in exchange for concessions.
“Those are just rumors,” Lacson said, stressing that no commitments or political bargains were discussed during caucus meetings.
He acknowledged maintaining friendly communication with some colleagues, including members who had previously aligned with the minority bloc, but emphasized that discussions remained informal and focused on personal relationships rather than political recruitment.
Points to 2015 Precedent
Addressing criticisms from senators who have questioned the legality of the proceedings, Lacson cited a similar Senate ruling in 2015 when only 12 senators were present but were nonetheless recognized as constituting a valid quorum.
He noted that several lawmakers now challenging the Senate’s actions were themselves members of the chamber during that period and did not object to the interpretation of quorum at the time.
“We respect their opinion, but the Constitution, jurisprudence, and Senate precedents are clear,” Lacson said.
Senate Rift Continues
The dispute over the leadership transition has deepened divisions within the Senate, with rival factions advancing competing interpretations of constitutional rules and parliamentary procedures.
Despite the controversy, supporters of the new leadership maintain that the reorganization was legally sound and necessary to restore normal operations in the chamber, while critics continue to question the legitimacy of the proceedings and the authority of the newly installed Senate officials.
As tensions persist, the battle over the Senate’s leadership is increasingly shifting from the session hall to the arena of legal and constitutional interpretation.
ia/xf
