It seems that the members of the majority bloc have mistaken absence for principle. Like a child who petulantly turns their back when they do not get their way, senators who refused to provide a quorum withdrew not only from their colleagues but also from the institution they were elected to serve, all under the guise of protecting integrity.
The plenary was stalled for three consecutive days beginning June 1 after members of the majority refused to report for work and return to the Senate. According to Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano, the absence during Monday’s session was a boycott following the arrest of Senator Jinggoy Estrada, while the continued no-show on Tuesday was a deliberate protest “intended to protect the integrity of ongoing Senate investigations amid recent developments.” Although the session resumed on June 3 after Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero showed up at the Senate—giving way for a quorum—the session immediately adjourned sine die following yet another reshuffle in leadership.
While Cayetano might view his reasons as acceptable, his and his colleagues’ actions seem to contradict his words. How can the Senate claim integrity and accountability while refusing to convene and perform its constitutional duties?
The numbers within the Senate are already evenly split. With Bato in hiding following the confirmation of an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Jinggoy Estrada arrested over plunder charges, the Senate is already deadlocked at 11–11. These numbers, while seemingly unimportant, are precisely why the majority’s absence immobilizes Senate operations due to the absence of a quorum—the required 13 senators needed to conduct business. Without a quorum, the Senate cannot hold sessions. And without plenary sessions, there can be no legislative action.
Cayetano cannot expect to uphold integrity in Senate investigations when their absence is disabling the Senate itself.
If the Constitution defines the Senate, it is as an institution tasked with proposing, debating, and passing bills and resolutions that benefit the general public. Coupled with this responsibility is its duty to conduct trials and inquiries into various concerns and issues—including the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte and the flood control case. While Cayetano wishes to uphold integrity in issues involving allegations of corruption and misuse of public funds, one cannot uphold integrity without actively supporting the continuation of the very processes it seeks to protect.
When proceedings are stalled, justice is delayed—and with it, the credibility of accountability itself begins to erode. What is worse is that the consequences of this institutional paralysis do not simply remain within the walls of the Senate.
Failure to deliberate on or pass legislation affects the public the institution is meant to serve. For instance, Senate Bill Nos. 1990 and 1991—both aimed at strengthening agricultural and fisheries cooperatives and extension systems—were left pending due to the paralysis of the Senate. Moreover, the flood control investigation remains in limbo despite nearing its anniversary since the probe began.
With the rainy season once again underway, the urgency of addressing infrastructure failures that have threatened the lives of many becomes even more apparent. Yet without decisive legislative and investigative action, the risks faced by affected communities persist, while accountability remains incomplete.
Ultimately, the most lasting consequence of sustained inaction is not the delay itself—it is the erosion of the Senate’s credibility.
Internal conflicts within the Senate shift focus away from legislative work and instead spotlight tensions among members of the chamber. This also raises questions about whether the Senate can still be trusted to put the Filipino people first, as prolonged absences create the impression that internal disputes have taken precedence over public service. When the institution tasked with resolving national concerns becomes consumed by its own dysfunction, public confidence in its ability to govern inevitably suffers.
The longer legislative work is stalled by political conflict, the more difficult it becomes for the Senate to convince the public that its priorities remain aligned with the interests of the people it was elected to serve.
For this reason, it is high time that senators are reminded that their responsibility and loyalty are not to political blocs or internal disputes, but to the Filipino people who put them in office. It is time they internalize that their duty is to ensure that proper legislation is enacted to serve their fellow Filipinos and that prolonged absence only wastes taxpayers’ money, from which their salaries are drawn. We must, therefore, demand their presence, demand that they stop wasting time, and demand that they get back to work, as the country’s welfare is on the line.
Despite internal feuds, presence remains a basic requirement of representation.
Public office demands more than declarations of integrity; it demands participation. Senators cannot claim to defend the institution while refusing to show up for it. Until its members return to their responsibilities, their absence will continue to speak louder than their principles.
Written by Gweneth Pablo | odile, Insight PH
Gweneth Pablo | odile, Insight PH is a dedicated campus journalist and contributor. Their insightful writing sparks meaningful conversations and keeps the community informed.
