The Senate’s shameful abdication of duty

Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero has pulled off a deception of grand proportions, misleading not only the House of Representatives and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. but also the Filipino people. 

By claiming that the Senate had no more time to tackle the impeachment complaint transmitted by the House because the chamber had already adjourned, Escudero has effectively sidestepped the Senate’s constitutional duty.

But the official record tells a different story.

According to Concurrent Resolution No. 22, adopted by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, sessions were officially set to continue until February 7, 2025—not February 5, as Escudero has misleadingly suggested. This means that the Senate had two full days to take cognizance of the impeachment complaint, adopt rules, and constitute itself into an impeachment court. Instead, Escudero and his colleagues, in what appears to be a deliberate evasion of duty, chose to adjourn early.

Why the rush in adjourning earlier on February 5 instead of the official February 7 ?  Were the senators too eager to start their vacation? Or, for those seeking reelection, were they simply itching to hit the campaign trail? Either way, their priorities were anywhere but where they should have been—upholding the Constitution and ensuring the integrity of the impeachment process.

Escudero, in his numerous media appearances, insisted that the House transmitted the impeachment articles at the last minute, leaving the Senate no choice but to defer action until June 2, when sessions resume. This is a blatant misrepresentation. The Senate still had two session days left to address the impeachment—two days that could have been used to adopt procedural rules and form the impeachment court, as required by the Constitution.

Even more damning is the way Senator Joel Villanueva gleefully moved to adjourn the session on February 5, grinning from ear to ear, without even acknowledging that the Senate had received the articles of impeachment just hours prior. This was not just procedural negligence—it was an outright dismissal of a solemn constitutional responsibility.

If the Senate had acted immediately, as required by the Constitution’s mandate to handle impeachment “forthwith,” there would have been no need for President Marcos to even consider calling a special session. Yet Escudero, in what can only be described as a disingenuous move, acted as though the Senate’s hands were tied.

Legal experts, including San Beda Law Dean Fr. Ranhilio Aquino, have pointed out the glaring flaws in Escudero’s argument. The Constitution does not recognize self-declared Senate recesses or adjournments as excuses to delay an impeachment trial. On the contrary, it explicitly states that once the House transmits articles of impeachment, the Senate must immediately convene as an impeachment court.

Even under Senate rules, Escudero had the power to recall the Senate into session, even while on recess. The reality is not that the Senate could not act—it chose not to.

This raises disturbing questions: Was Escudero protecting Vice President Sara Duterte? Was he engaging in political maneuvering to shield the Senate from difficult decisions? Or was this part of a larger scheme to quietly kill the impeachment process by running out the clock?

At this point, the only honorable course of action is for Escudero to request President Marcos to call for a special session so that the Senate can adopt impeachment rules and constitute itself as an impeachment court. Anything less would be a grave disservice to the Filipino people, who expect their elected officials to uphold the Constitution and fulfill their sworn duties.

Escudero’s failure to act has already cast a long shadow over his leadership. His excuses have been debunked, and his refusal to convene the Senate reeks of political compromise. He may think he is being clever, but history will remember him not as a statesman, but as a Senate president who abandoned his constitutional responsibility in the most crucial moment.

The Senate’s role in impeachment is not optional. It is a constitutional duty. If Escudero and his colleagues refuse to fulfill it, they do not deserve the people’s trust—or their votes.  

Regulatory clarity on ride-hailing discounts urgently needed

The recent Senate hearing chaired by Senator Raffy Tulfo laid bare a glaring regulatory oversight regarding the allocation of mandatory 20% discounts for senior citizens, persons with disabilities (PWDs), students, and athletes in the ride-hailing sector. While the laws governing transportation discounts are rooted in the service provided by TNVS operators—specifically, those who physically drive the vehicles—the lack of clear guidance from the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) has left both drivers and TNCs in a quagmire of confusion.

Drivers are increasingly canceling bookings from qualifying passengers to avoid incurring losses due to discounts they legally should not be funding entirely on their own. Such adverse behaviors not only undermine the spirit of these important laws but also place vulnerable demographics at a disadvantage.

This happened after transport network companies (TNCs) like Grab, Angkas, Move it, In Drive, Joyride  etc. effectively shifted  the financial burden of these discounts onto driver-partners, even as regulations explicitly indicate that such discounts should be derived from the fare charged by the drivers themselves.

 The current legislative landscape, including the Expanded Senior Citizens Act and the Expanded PWD Act, indicates unequivocally that it is the responsibility of the TNVS operators to absorb these discounts. However, as we have seen over the past six months, the reality is far removed from this intention.

In light of these revelations, the LTFRB must swiftly clarify its stance on who should bear financial responsibility for these discounts. It requires immediate rectification through either enforceable regulations or clear directives. With public sentiment mounting against TNCs, we cannot overlook the fact that this murky situation invites exploitation and exacerbates inequities for those who genuinely need assistance.

While some argue that TNCs should absorb more of the discount burden, we must reckon with the reality that doing so without clear legislation risk undermining the viability of these businesses altogether. Thus, any proposed facade of responsibility needs to come coupled with a legal basis for enforcement, which is currently lacking.

Additionally, Congress must take this opportunity to amend existing legislation to explicitly address ride-hailing services. It cannot allow this regulatory vacuum to persist, further endangering the livelihoods of TNVS driver-partners while betraying the principles behind the discount programs designed to assist marginalized groups. Legislation must clearly delineate the responsibilities of TNCs versus those of individual drivers, ensuring that all stakeholders understand their roles moving forward.

The proposed legislative amendments should take into account the unique dynamics of the ride-hailing environment, making provisions that recognize TNCs as not just facilitators of transport but as entities responsible for adhering to the same legal frameworks that govern traditional transportation fare systems.

It is high time that government, through the LTFRB, steps up and provides necessary oversight and legislative clarity concerning mandatory discounts in ride-hailing services. To maintain the integrity of these social programs and protect the most vulnerable among us, it is imperative that we establish clear guidelines outlining who shoulders what responsibilities in our evolving transport system. We can no longer afford to let ambiguity reign. Immediate action is crucial, for the fortitude of an equitable transport ecosystem relies on it.