The unwarranted railroading of the approval of the death penalty bill has been signaled by Majority Floor Leader Rodolfo Fariñas when he threatened to close the debates much earlier than the arbitrary target date of March 8, 2016 which Speaker Alvarez announced as the day when House Bill No. 4727 will be put to a vote on second reading.

The projected action of Fariñas was triggered when (a) Rep. Edcel Lagman questioned the existence of a quorum prior to Rep. Tom Villarin’s interpellation since there was no sufficient number of Members in the plenary hall and (b) when Lagman moved for a nominal voting on the presiding officer’s flawed appreciation that there were more “nays” objecting to adjournment.

The motion to adjourn and the motion for nominal voting are based on the following Rules of the House:

1. "A majority of all the Members of the House shall constitute a quorum. The House shall not transact business without a quorum." (Sec. 75 of Rule XI).

2. Upon motion of a Member, duly approved by one-fifth (1/5) of the Members present, there being a quorum, nominal voting on any question may be called. In case of nominal voting, the Secretary General shall call, in alphabetical order, the names of the Members who shall state their vote as their names are called. (Sec. 116 of Rule XV).

Fariñas based his threat to close the debates on Section 54 of Rule X which provides: "A motion to close the debate on a measure shall be in order after three (3) speeches in favor and two (2) against, or after only one (1) speech in favor and none against: Provided, That within the last fifteen (15) days before adjournment, a motion to close debate on a measure shall be in order after two (2) speeches in favor and one (1) against, or after only one (1) speech in favor and none against."

Representative Raul Daza said that Section 54 refers to the stage of the turno en contra which follows the end of the periods of interpellation and amendments.

It is a wonder that when the House leadership subjectively uses the Rules to gag interpellators like the one-hour limitation by unduly and unreasonably including the time of the answering sponsors to the one hour allocated to the interpellator, they appear to be omnipotent but when the Rules of the House are invoked by the oppositors to the death penalty bill, the House leadership is touchy even as the citation of the Rules is well-anchored.

Past Congresses did not gag Members who wished to interpellate just like in the debates of the bills on the comprehensive agrarian reform program, reimposition of the death penalty, abolition of the death penalty and the reproductive health bill, among others.

EDCEL C. LAGMAN