FORMER Senate president Franklin Drilon said Saturday that the Senate should tackle real issues like the proposed absentee voting amendment and its impact rather than personal attacks.
Drilon said that it is crucial to determine whether senators should be allowed to vote even when they are not physically present in the session hall.
"The only issue is whether absentee voting should be allowed," Drilon said.
"This proposed amendment has many implications and deserves careful debate," he said in a radio interview.
Drilon said critics of the proposal believe the measure could affect the conduct of an impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, particularly in situations requiring crucial votes on subpoenas and evidence gathering.
He noted that questions have been raised about whether the amendment is being pushed in anticipation of future impeachment proceedings, where obtaining the required number of votes could prove decisive.
"If certain motions require 13 votes and those numbers are not available, then absentee voting could change the dynamics of the proceedings," Drilon said. "That is the issue that should be discussed."
Drilon lamented that the debate had shifted away from policy and procedural concerns and had instead become personal.
"The debate became personal, and that is unfortunate," he said. "During my time in the Senate, debates were intense. We often disagreed, but we did not fight. After the debates, we remained colleagues."
Drilon criticized remarks questioning a senator's educational attainment or legal background, saying such arguments are irrelevant to the issue at hand.
"You cannot underestimate a senator simply because he or she is not a lawyer," Drilon said.
He cited the role of Sen. Risa Hontiveros in exposing the "pastillas" immigration bribery scheme, as well as leading investigations on former Bamban Mayor Alice Guo's involvement in illegal POGOs.
"Public office should be used to uncover the truth, not to hide it," he said. "Capability should be measured by performance and public service, not by academic credentials alone."
Drilon defended the actions of senators who opposed moving forward with discussions on the proposed amendment by raising quorum issues.
He said the use of quorum calls, adjournment motions, and other procedural tools is a legitimate parliamentary practice recognized in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
"When there is a major disagreement, the minority has the right to use the rules available to it," he said. "If the majority cannot produce the necessary quorum, then proceedings cannot continue. There is nothing improper about that."
Drilon said that such tactics have long been employed in legislative bodies when opposing sides are unable to reach a consensus on contentious measures.
"What matters is the substance of the proposal and its consequences for the Senate and the country," Drilon said. "The debate should be based on facts, law, and policy — not personalities."
