Camp Crame arrest processing

Senate Stalled: Majority’s Vanishing Act and the Rules They Broke

The session, originally set to resume at 5 p.m., never materialized. According to GMA Network, Cayetano had pushed back the start time from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., but by the scheduled hour, not a single majority senator was present. Estrada, who surrendered to authorities earlier in the day, was being processed at Camp Crame by the Philippine National Police (PNP). The plunder charges specifically involve the alleged diversion of public funds from flood mitigation projects managed by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). Cayetano himself was nowhere to be found in the Senate chamber. The minority bloc, led by Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri, was left in the dark—no notice was given, no explanation offered, just silence.

The absence wasn’t just an oversight; it was a direct violation of Senate rules. Zubiri confirmed that the minority bloc was told there was no notice from the majority regarding their non-attendance. The Senate Secretariat, responsible for the dissemination of the Order of Business, did not issue a formal memorandum to cancel the proceedings. By 7 p.m., the minority senators had had enough. Senator Sherwin Gatchalian, speaking to reporters, called the move a clear violation of protocol: “There was definitely a breach of rules. You can’t just cancel a session without consulting both the majority and minority.” He added that the minority was considering filing an ethics complaint with the Committee on Ethics and Privileges, framing the absence as a deliberate snub.

“Well, that’s what we’re discussing now, but definitely there was a violation. You can’t just arbitrarily cancel a session without notice to both the majority and minority.”
—Senator Sherwin Gatchalian, via GMA Network

The majority’s absence wasn’t just about Estrada’s arrest—it was about leverage. The Senate had pending matters of national importance, including the promotion of generals and bills on Filipino citizenship for athletes, all left hanging. The minority bloc, known as the Solid Bloc 11, slammed the majority’s actions as a “boycott of duty” rather than a stand for Senate independence. In a statement, they accused Cayetano’s bloc of prioritizing political theater over legislative work, leaving critical measures—like the Magna Carta of Barangay Health Workers and the Anti-Hospital Detention Bill—stuck in limbo.

“The Solid Bloc 11 minority senators were present today for the 5 p.m. resumption of session, ready to work, ready to vote on pending bills and ready to keep the Senate running, but the majority led by SP Cayetano chose not to show up.”
—Solid Bloc 11 statement, via Manila Bulletin

The minority’s frustration was palpable. They pointed out that the majority had not even extended the basic courtesy of informing them that the session would not proceed. “They didn’t even have the decency to tell us they had no intention of convening,” the Solid Bloc 11 said in their statement. The group stressed that the Senate is an institution of the people, not a pawn in Cayetano’s hands. Their message was clear: the majority’s actions were not about upholding Senate independence but about stalling progress for partisan gain.

Cayetano’s Gambit: A Statement That Missed the Mark

Cayetano’s response to the minority’s outrage was a statement that did little to address the core issue. He framed the absence as a stand for “Senate independence,” arguing that the chamber’s business was its own to settle. “The Senate is a co-equal branch of government,” he wrote. “It is not a prize to be claimed by anyone.” His plea to the minority was a call to unity, but it rang hollow. “Will you stand for the Senate’s independence?” he asked, but his own actions had already undermined that very principle.

“To my colleagues in the Minority: The Senate is a co-equal branch of government. It is not a prize to be claimed by anyone. Events of the past few days may have blurred this distinction, but what happened with one of our colleagues today brings it sharply back into focus.”
—Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano, via GMA Network

The minority saw through Cayetano’s rhetoric. The Solid Bloc 11 argued that the majority’s boycott was not about independence but about avoiding accountability. “The claim that this is about Senate independence is false,” they said. “What happened today was about the rule of law, public accountability, and a lawful process before the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan that no senator, no bloc, and no presiding officer controls.” Their point was clear: the majority was using Estrada’s arrest as a smokescreen to stall legislative work and avoid scrutiny.

The Stakes: What’s Really at Risk in the Senate’s Stalemate

The Senate’s paralysis is more than a procedural spat—it’s a crisis of governance. With critical bills stalled, the Senate’s ability to function as a check on executive power is being tested. The Solid Bloc 11 highlighted several measures that are now at risk: the confirmation of generals before the Commission on Appointments, the granting of Philippine citizenship to athletes Bennie Boatwright III and Matthew James Ramos, and the passage of health and anti-detention bills. The delay in confirming military promotions leaves key leadership roles in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in a state of uncertainty. These are not just legislative items; they are matters of public trust and national security.

• The Magna Carta of Barangay Health Workers
• The Anti-Hospital Detention Bill
• Confirmation of generals before the Commission on Appointments
• Bills granting Philippine citizenship to athletes Bennie Boatwright III and Matthew James Ramos

The majority’s boycott is also a test of Cayetano’s leadership. His call for unity rings empty when his own bloc is the one refusing to show up. The minority’s accusation—that the majority is prioritizing partisan politics over legislative duty—strikes at the heart of the Senate’s credibility. If Cayetano truly believes in the Senate’s independence, his first act should be to convene the chamber and address the backlog of pending business, not to stage a protest that leaves the public in the dark.

What Comes Next: The Senate’s Crossroads

The next few days will be critical. The minority bloc has already signaled its intent to push back against the majority’s actions, with ethics complaints and calls for accountability on the table. Cayetano, meanwhile, faces a choice: double down on his protest or return to the chamber and attempt to salvage what little remains of the Senate’s legitimacy. The public is watching, and patience is wearing thin.

What’s at stake is not just the Senate’s ability to function but its reputation. The institution’s credibility hinges on whether it can rise above partisan squabbles and fulfill its constitutional duties. The minority’s frustration is understandable—they showed up to work, only to be left in the lurch. The question now is whether Cayetano and his allies will answer for their absence or continue to prioritize political maneuvering over the people’s business.

One thing is certain: the Senate’s independence will not be upheld by boycotts or absences. It will be upheld by senators who show up, who debate, and who legislate—no matter their differences. The clock is ticking, and the people of the Philippines deserve better than a chamber that stands still.

<!– /wp:paragraph The Senate’s leadership insisted the cancellation was procedural, though critics argued it undermined transparency and respect for legislative norms.