A CIVIL society organization last week filed before the Senate an ethics complaint against Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, citing his continued absence from official duties for more than three months. It is about time somebody did, but the complaint is unlikely to prosper, given the Senate’s feckless track record of holding one of its own accountable.
Dela Rosa, named by prosecutors of the International Criminal Court as a co-perpetrator in the crimes against humanity case against former president Rodrigo Duterte, has been in hiding since November 2025, when rumors circulated that he would be arrested, much like his erstwhile boss was, and whisked to the Netherlands to stand trial. Since then, he has been absent from the Senate, but continues to draw his salary, which ranges between P293,191 and P334,059 each month.
This situation is patently unjust, and spurred the group Wag Kang KuCorrupt, led by former finance undersecretary Cielo Magno, to accuse dela Rosa of neglecting his responsibilities as a lawmaker and committing grave abuse of public trust.
In the complaint submitted to the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges, the organization argued that dela Rosa’s prolonged absence undermines the mandate given to him by Filipino voters. It emphasized that elected officials are duty-bound to attend plenary sessions, participate in committee hearings, and deliberate on measures affecting national policy.
“Continued absence from Senate sessions is not only neglect of duty, but also a betrayal of the trust bestowed upon him by the people,” the complaint read.
As we did before in this space, Magno compared the standards imposed on public officials and ordinary workers, noting that employees who are repeatedly absent from work are typically placed on leave without pay or suffer salary deductions, suspension, or termination.
She said senators, as public servants receiving taxpayer-funded salaries and benefits, should be held to at least the same level of accountability.
Magno called on the Senate Ethics Committee to immediately act on the complaint and impose appropriate sanctions if violations are found. “The Senate should not tolerate this behavior of continued absence and failure to fulfill official duties,” she said.
Under Senate rules, the committee has the authority to investigate complaints against members and recommend penalties, which may range from reprimand to suspension, subject to approval by the chamber.
The case is expected to test internal accountability mechanisms within the Senate, but the historical record suggests the senators may well fail this test.
In the history of the Philippine Senate, formal ethics complaints that resulted in a recommendation for a penalty and subsequently upheld by the plenary were rare.
While dozens of complaints were filed across different Congresses, the majority are either dismissed for lack of merit, “junked” because they involve protected speech, or simply languish until the session expired.
Senate records and historical summaries show that only four members of the Senate were sanctioned by their peers between 1924 and the late 1990s. Sanctions usually take the form of a censure or reprimand, rather than the extreme measures of suspension or expulsion.
Only two senators, Jose Alejandrino in 1924 and then-Senate president Jose Avelino in 1949, were suspended for a year — the former, for assaulting a fellow senator after a heated debate; and the latter, amid allegations of corruption, tax evasion, and misuse of public funds. In a defiant defense of political spoils to then-president Elpidio Quirino, Avelino delivered the now-infamous line: “What are we in power for?”
Since then, only two other senators, Juan Ponce Enrile and Heherson Alvarez, were censured — the former, for a speech linking the Senate to a coup attempt; and the latter, for using the Senate seal for personal business.
A report by the Senate Committee of the Whole recommended censure in the case of Sen. Manuel “Manny” Villar Jr. over a complaint that he used the C-5 road project to benefit his real estate companies, but the session ended without a plenary vote.
Given such a poor record in sanctioning its own erring members, the Senate has been justifiably viewed as an “Old Boys’ Club” that operates on a foundation of entrenched families, shared social circles, and a culture of “institutional courtesy” that prioritizes peer protection over public accountability.
An unwritten but ironclad rule is that members of the Senate agree not to interfere in each other’s internal affairs or criticize one another too harshly in public. Senators are generally hesitant to sanction a colleague because they know the political wheel turns, and they may need that colleague’s protection or vote in the future.
This “interparliamentary courtesy” is often why ethics complaints rarely prosper. It is also the ultimate discourtesy to the millions of Filipinos who put them in office.
