Mamamayang Liberal party-list Rep. Leila de Lima on Sunday took a swipe at Senate President Vicente Sotto III, saying her absence as then senator was entirely different from the failure of Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa to physically appear at the Senate.
Meanwhile, Sotto III has said that Dela Rosa who made himself scarce following reports of an arrest warrant issued against him by the International Criminal Court (ICC) could be compelled to attend plenary sessions, including through an arrest order, if his vote would be critical to the chamber.
“With due respect, SP Sotto should not compare me with (ex-) senator (Antonio) Trillanes (IV) or with Senator Bato’s situation. Our non-attendance in Senate sessions during our incumbency was involuntary. I could not be physically present in the Senate because I was in detention to face the fabricated charges filed against me by the Duterte administration. On the other hand, Senator Bato is running away from possible arrest by the International Criminal Court,” she argued.
“Even though I was incarcerated and it was difficult that I did not have any gadget then, I still worked as a senator by filing many bills, some of them became laws. I even requested to participate in the Senate’s online sessions and hearings during the (COVID-19) pandemic since that (practice) was normally done but the Senate’s majority did not allow me to do so,” she pointed out.
“These matters of productivity in legislative output and the constant eagerness to join plenary sessions and committee hearings, despite my unjust detention, are clear evidence of work and intent to work. Do not use me as an excuse for not disciplining a delinquent senator,” De Lima said in a statement.
“Our rules state that when there is a vote and your vote is important, or it is important that everyone votes… the Senate President can order a senator to be brought in or arrested to cast their vote,” Sotto explained.
He clarified that the rule applies when a senator’s presence is essential to pass legislation or settle key matters in the Senate.
Dela Rosa has been absent from Senate sessions since Nov. 11, 2025, after reports that the ICC has issued a warrant against him in connection with the the bloody war on drugs during the Duterte administration.
Dela Rosa presided over the anti-drug campaign as chief of the Philippine National Police. He was elected to the Senate in 2019 and won reelection last year.
Despite his absence, Sotto said Dela Rosa’s Senate office continues to operate and carry out official duties, with his personal social media page showing activity as recently as Dec. 16, 2025.
The Senate President said he sent multiple text messages and voice calls to Dela Rosa since late last year, but received no replies.
Sotto’s last message concerned Dela Rosa’s role in the bicameral conference committee on the 2026 national budget, where the senator serves as vice chairman of the Senate finance panel.
“To each his own… that’s how it is. He chooses not to come in, but his office is still functioning,” said Sotto, pointing out that no current measure has yet required Dela Rosa’s vote.
Under Article VI, Section 16(2) of the 1987 Constitution, majority of all elected senators constitute a quorum to conduct business, but when a quorum is lacking, a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and compel the attendance of absent members in a manner and under penalties determined by the chamber.
This constitutional authority is implemented through the Rules of the Senate, which provide that when the absence of a quorum is raised, the presiding officer must immediately order a roll call to verify attendance and announce the result on the floor.
If the roll call shows that a quorum is not present, the senators in attendance may direct the sergeant-at-arms to take steps to compel the attendance of absent members so that legislative work may proceed.
Senate rules also reflected long-standing parliamentary practice that no senator should absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave, illness, or other recognized cause, although the rules do not impose automatic sanctions for non-attendance.
