House leader wants to restart stalled death penalty measure

A HOUSE leader has threatened to end the period of debates on the death penalty bill and instead push for the immediate second-reading approval of the measure, after an opposition lawmaker questioned the quorum during Wednesday night’s session.

“If that is our status now, as the chairman of the committee on rules we will now force to vote on this measure and we will now close the period debates,” House Majority Floor Leader Rodolfo C. Fariñas warned during the session.

This came after Albay Rep. Edcel C. Lagman (1st district) moved to adjourn the session, saying it lacked the required presence of majority of lawmakers.

Two hundred two members responded to the roll call, thus constituting a quorum, but some of them left the plenary after a few hours. Under the House rules, the legislators cannot proceed with their business without a quorum.

Mr. Fariñas said other lawmakers decided to leave the session hall as they preferred to watch the plenary debates online on the House’s official Web site, while others were working in their respective offices.

“Because they want to speak, we are accommodating them to speak. But when they speak, they demand that at least 51% should be present here to speak. Eh ’ di na namin problema kung walang gustong makinig sa inyo (It’s not our problem anymore if no one wants to listen to you),” Mr. Fariñas said.

The majority leader said he would call a caucus to determine if their allies still want an interpellation or just proceed with the measure’s approval.

Mr. Fariñas: “I will now lay on the floor that we will meet in the committee on rules... and I will call for the caucus of the majority. And if the majority says, ‘Enough debates already. Let us vote on the matter,’ eh maski gusto ko po kayong pagbigyan, kung ayaw na ng nakakarami, eh baka mapilitan po kaming itigil na ang debate dito at pagbotohan na, tutal

naman alam na po yung issues (even if I want to accommodate you, if the majority wants otherwise, we might be forced to end the debate and just vote on the bill since we already know the issues).”

The House leaders aim to approve the measure on second reading by March 8.

Mr. Fariñas also said they have been “very accommodating” to those who oppose the bill despite their “so many interpellators.” Mr. Lagman had earlier submitted at least 50 names of lawmakers who wished to interpellate the bill’s authors.

House Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez had also appealed to lawmakers opposing the death penalty to refrain from employing “dilatory tactics.”

In his statement, Mr. Lagman said the move by Mr. Fariñas signaled “the unwarranted railroading of the approval of the death penalty bill.”

He said: “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 [opponents of] the death penalty bill, the House leadership is touchy even as the citation of the Rules is well-anchored.”