Lacson questions motive behind 3 minority senators’ votes on motion to unseat Tulfo

MANILA – Sen. Panfilo Lacson on Saturday questioned the motive behind the vote of 3 minority senator-members on a motion to disqualify Sen. Erwin Tulfo through the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET).

The SET’s three minority senator-members — Pia Cayetano, Robin Padilla, and Camille Villar — favored a motion for reconsideration with amended petition for quo warranto to have Tulfo unseated.

The SET is composed of three Supreme Court justices and six senators. The other senator-members of the SET are Francis Pangilinan, Benigno Aquino IV, and Manuel “Lito” Lapid, who sit for the majority bloc.

Lacson said the petition was filed by someone he described as “without legal standing.”

In a subsequent X post, Lacson also commended the three Supreme Court justices and the other three senator-members of the SET who “undoubtedly knew” the procedural flaw and whose votes helped defeat the motion.

“SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL: Justice and fairness went out of the window when three minority senator-members voted in favor of an out-of-time motion for reconsideration filed by a petitioner without legal standing. Their motive may be deeper than personal issues against Sen Tulfo,” he said in a post on X.

“MORE ON THE SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL: Let’s give credit to the three SC justice-members and the other three senator-members who undoubtedly knew the obvious procedural flaw which resulted in a 6-3 vote, thus dismissing the motion for reconsideration,” he said.

On Friday, the SET voted 6-3 to deny the motion for reconsideration with amended petition for quo warranto filed by Berteni Causing.

Causing’s original petition sought to unseat Tulfo citing questions about his citizenship, alleged membership in a political dynasty and lack of academic qualifications. 

The original petition was dismissed due to insufficiency in form.

The SET also ruled that the motion was filed beyond the period set by the 2020 SET Rules and did not comply with its filing and service requirements.

It added that the amended petition itself remained insufficient in form. The denial was without prejudice to the filing of any other petition.

Lacson also cited Pangilinan’s observation that a basic requirement for any petition before the SET is that the complainant must be a registered voter, but Causing failed to establish this in his petition.

When Causing filed his motion for reconsideration in April this year – after the prescribed filing period had lapsed – he “failed to allege that he was a qualified voter a second time.”