The privilege of being absent

A teacher who misses class has some explaining to do. So does a government employee who fails to report for work. There are leave forms, attendance records, supervisors, and, depending on the circumstances, salary deductions. Even a few minutes of tardiness can become an issue. Anyone who has worked in a school or government office knows how seriously attendance can be taken.

Which makes the situation in the Senate rather curious.

On Oct. 27, 2026, Senate President Pro Tempore Vicente “Tito” Sotto III filed Senate Resolution No. 751, calling for clearer rules on senators who stay away for long periods without permission. Apparently, the existing rules do not adequately settle what happens when a senator remains absent and important legislative responsibilities are left unattended.

I think Sotto has a point. Quite a good one, actually.

Imagine a public school teacher disappearing for months without approved leave. The principal would hardly be satisfied with the explanation that the teacher remains officially employed. Parents would want to know who was teaching their children. Students would still need their lessons. Someone else would have to take over the classes.

Something similar happens in the Senate. The work does not disappear just because a senator is absent. Someone else often has to pick it up. In late 2025, Sotto acknowledged that Sherwin Gatchalian had to defend the Department of National Defense’s proposed budget because Ronald dela Rosa, who had originally been assigned the task, was absent.

Of course, not all absences are alike. Dela Rosa has been away amid an International Criminal Court case. Loren Legarda has been on extended medical leave. Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta, meanwhile, have been detained and have faced court-ordered preventive suspensions. On Oct. 25, Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian said the Senate was holding off on implementing those suspension orders while their legal challenges were being addressed (Servallos, 2026).

Those differences matter. Someone who is ill deserves understanding. Someone detained or facing a court order is not in the same position as someone who simply chooses not to report for work. And facing criminal accusations does not make a person guilty.

Hindi puwedeng pare-pareho ang hatol.

Still, voters deserve an explanation when an elected official stays away for months. After all, the responsibilities they entrusted to that person have not disappeared.

There is also a detail worth getting right. Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian reportedly said the four senators were no longer receiving their monthly salaries and office operating funds during their absences. That deserves acknowledgment. We should not accuse people of collecting money they reportedly are not receiving.

Okay, so they’re not getting paid. But that doesn’t mean nothing was lost. May mga botong maaaring hindi naibigay, mga tanong na hindi naitanong, at mga pondong sana’y nadagdagan pa ang pagsusuri. Those things affect real people. After all, we elect senators to work for us, not merely to hold a position.

The Senate can find someone to take over an absent senator’s assignment. What it cannot easily replace is the voice voters elected to represent them.

For all the noise surrounding Sotto’s proposal, Resolution No. 751 isn’t about kicking anyone out of the Senate. It simply asks the Committee on Rules to look into the problem and come up with clearer guidelines. That sounds fair to me. Surely, it’s better to agree on the rules now than argue over what to do every time another senator goes missing from work.

The Constitution already gives the Senate the power to compel attendance under its rules. But suspending or expelling a senator as a disciplinary measure requires a two-thirds vote of all Senate members, and such a suspension cannot exceed 60 days. There is no constitutional shortcut from an attendance sheet to an empty Senate seat.

Then again, perfect attendance doesn’t guarantee good public service. Some politicians are very good at looking busy. They can sit through hours of proceedings without saying or doing much. Others may be out attending to legitimate legislative or constituency work. We shouldn’t mistake a warm seat for a job well done.

The question is whether the work gets done. And when it does not, is anyone held accountable?

What interests me most is whether the Senate can come up with rules that apply just as firmly to political allies as to political opponents. That is usually where good-sounding accountability proposals become uncomfortable. It is easy to demand sanctions when the absent official belongs to a camp we dislike. The real test comes when the same standard applies to someone we support.

There is a familiar irony here. In government offices, attendance records are carefully checked, sometimes down to the minute. Meanwhile, the Senate is still discussing what to do when one of its members stays away for months without authorization.

Sotto deserves support for raising the issue. Whether his colleagues will give the proposal the attention it deserves is another matter.

For the teacher who has to explain a missed class, the distinction may be difficult to appreciate. The attendance sheet is already waiting on the principal’s desk.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions that employ him or with which he is affiliated.