Can the Senate allow remote participation and voting?
The Senate majority bloc pushed electronic voting to the forefront, driving a debate over proposed rule changes to permit remote legislative participation.
Last May 11, Sen. Rodante Marcoleta introduced an amendment to the said rule, which would allow a senator to attend, participate, and hold votings virtually due to "justifiable reasons."
This was met with fierce opposition by the Senate minority, who argued that the amendment undermines the legal concept of force majeure—especially since the current circumstances, including a fellow senator going into hiding from the law, do not constitute a national emergency.
The dispute escalated after Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano called for an immediate plenary discussion, prompting a minority walkout led by Sen. Erwin Tulfo and leaving only 12 senators on the floor, including Sen. Vicente Sotto III, who questioned the existence of a quorum.
With teleconferencing now common in the workplaces, can senators legally conduct official business the same way?
Is teleconferencing in the Senate possible?
Senate Rule 14 Section 41-B says teleconferencing is possible "due to force majeure or the occurrence of a national emergency as determined by the majority of all the members of the Senate which may prevent the convening of the Senate or the physical presence of its members in the session hall." This rule was implimented in 2020 during the COVID-19 lockdowns until then-Senate President Tito Sotto phased it out in 2022.
Another example cited in discussions on teleconferencing in the Senate is the case of former senator, now Mamamayang Liberal party-list representative, Leila de Lima, who was detained in 2016 due to drug charges under the Duterte presidency.
In 2017 and 2019, senators filed a resolution seeking to allow De Lima to participate in sessions and other functions of the Senate pending the trial on her cases.
De Lima herself sought permission from a Muntinlupa court to participate in Senate plenary sessions via teleconference from the Philippine National Police's Custodial Center, but her request was denied in June 2020 as her detention did not constitute a force majeure.
Citing the war in the Middle East, the China-Taiwan conflict, and El Niño, Sen. Robin Padilla argued that these crises constituted force majeure. However, Sens. Risa Hontiveros and Erwin Tulfo quickly dismissed it, arguing it did not justify a lawmaker's remote participation.
Speaking to PhilSTAR L!fe, UP College of Law assistant dean Paolo Tamase defined force majeure as "events that cannot be foreseen, or if unforeseen are unavoidable."
"Not every unforeseen event or every emergency or even calamity is a force majeure. It requires, for example, that there really is no possibility for the original obligation or act to continue," he said.
But why the rush? Former Ateneo Law dean Atty. Tony La Viña told L!fe that the rush may stem from certain majority senators facing legal trouble under international law.
"There's an expectation that several of them will go to jail soon, di ba?" he said. "And maybe, aside from Bato, (Bong) Go will also go to the ICC."
Can rules be changed?
While an amendment to Senate procedures is possible, Tamase emphasized that any change must strictly adhere to the chamber's established legislative process. The process requires that any amendment be put to a final plenary vote only after the both the majority and minority have been granted a fair opportunity to debate.
"The reason why it's like that is, the Constitution acknowledges that we are a democracy and therefore majority win is the general rule," he said.
Tamase underscored that these procedural safeguards exist to protect the very foundation of the institution.
"The rules of the Senate are highly critical to the functioning of the Senate. Those rules have grown out of tradition. So decades, almost 100 years in the Philippines of tradition on how to ensure debate, ensure freedom of discourse, and ensure an intelligent vote within the upper chamber. And therefore, the majority and the minority are given enough time to consider any rule change before it is actually passed or voted upon by the plenary," he explained.
Quorum and 'solemnity' of the impeachment trial
Tamase warned that allowing teleconferencing during a high-stakes constitutional proceeding—such as the impending impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte—creates more questions than answers for the chamber.
"Even when there is a teleconferencing arrangement, there must be some way to acknowledge or there must be some way to account for technologies," he said, explaining that a virtual setup opens the door to deepfakes or artificial intelligence being used to impersonate a lawmaker on screen, or "senators calling from the jurisdiction of the Philippines or calling outside."
"These things impact things like state power, the verifiability of a senator's identity, and basically the legitimacy of their processes," he continued.
Tamase added that a major consideration for teleconferencing is a proper decorum that is expected in a Senate trial.
"There's a certain solemnity that's expected of impeachment trials. And while our courts have resorted to teleconferencing arrangements—the presentation of evidence, seeing witnesses, hearing counsel, interpolate the judges or the senator judges asking questions—all of these require a certain solemnity that Zoom or any other videoconferencing platform might not be able to replicate," he concluded.