Senate Minority Group, Sans Lapid, Walks Out After a Heated Clash on E-Voting Bid Discussion
𝗔 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲, 𝗔 𝗛𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗔𝗻 𝗔𝗱 𝗛𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗺, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔 𝗪𝗮𝗹𝗸𝗼𝘂𝘁
Minority senators, sans Senator Lito Lapid, walked out of the plenary session after a heated clash regarding the rule amendment on remote participation and electronic voting.
The intense debate revolved around Senator Rodante Marcoleta’s proposed rule amendment allowing online participation during sessions. Minority bloc members also questioned the seemingly ‘rushed’ process to amend the rules. During the heated discussion, Senator Marcoleta made a remark about the lack of legal background after Senator Risa Hontiveros’ speech. Senator Erwin Tulfo, on the other hand, called out Senator Marcoleta over his ‘ad hominem’ remarks.
Whilst the intense debate and minority leader Senator Sotto’s call for adjournment, the Senate minority bloc walked out prompting the plenary session to lose its quorum.
Later that evening, the Senate minority group released a joint statement on the senate minority walkout through their official Facebook pages:
JOINT STATEMENT ON THE SENATE MINORITY WALKOUT
May 26, 2026
We strongly condemn what appears to be an attempt to rush a major change in the Senate Rules, especially when several members of the minority still wanted to speak and raise serious questions on the floor.
Bakit kailangang madaliin? Bakit kailangang pigilan ang mga gustong magsalita? Bakit kailangang i-divide ang house kung marami pang senador ang nagtatanong tungkol sa proseso?
Minamadali ba ang rule change na ito dahil gusto nilang maka boto si Senator Bato? At ngayong may mga ulat na may mga majority senators na maaaring arestuhin?
We walked out because what happened on the floor looked less like orderly deliberation. The proposed rule change affects how senators may attend sessions, participate in proceedings and exercise their mandate through remote means, and such a measure should be opened to healthy public debate instead of being rushed by the tyranny of the majority.
We have always welcomed healthy discussions on the floor, but this should mean allowing all members to be heard, not forcing the chamber to move at the speed preferred by the majority.
At the time the motion was taken up, there was no duly constituted Committee on Rules and there was not even an elected Majority Leader who could properly guide a rules amendment through the regular process.
How could there have been any action or discussion before the Committee on Rules when no Committee on Rules has been organized to date?
With due respect, the answer that no Senate rule had been violated does not settle the matter, because the rules cannot be treated as a matter of convenience when the very process for amending them is under serious question.
The timing raises a question that the public deserves to hear debated openly. Kaya pinili naming tumayo at iwan ang majority sa plenary. Kaya kami nagdesisyon to question the quorum and call for adjournment.
If the proposal is truly defensible, then let it pass through the proper route.
We owe it to the people who voted for us to do our mandate. This is why we want more time to discuss this further.
