The issue of absenteeism in the Senate has once again come under public scrutiny, exposing a glaring gap in institutional accountability that can no longer be ignored.
Senator JV Ejercito recently urged the chamber to revisit and amend its rules to address the persistent absence of lawmakers—an issue highlighted by the case involving Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa. While Ejercito clarified that he is not seeking the outright dismissal of the complaint, his remarks reveal a deeper institutional flaw: the absence of clear and enforceable rules on prolonged non-attendance.
This loophole is not just a Senate problem—it is a governance problem.
At a time when public officials are expected to uphold the highest standards of responsibility, the lack of firm rules creates a dangerous precedent. It suggests that elected leaders may evade accountability simply because existing systems are outdated or incomplete.
The claim that such behavior was “not anticipated” only underscores how far current policies lag behind present-day realities. Public office is built on trust, and that trust is eroded each time an official fails to perform the most basic duty: showing up.
Experts have already pointed out the inherent unfairness of the situation. Even without explicit rules, the ethical obligation is clear. Holding office is not ceremonial—it demands presence, participation, and responsiveness to the people.
The controversy surrounding Dela Rosa, particularly in connection with developments involving the International Criminal Court, may be complex. But complexity should never be used as a shield against accountability. The principle is simple: no official should be beyond scrutiny.
More importantly, any reform must not stop at the Senate.
If absenteeism is a problem at the highest level of legislation, it is likely present—if not worse—across other elective positions, from the House of Representatives to local government units. Governors, mayors, and councilors wield direct influence over people’s daily lives. Their absence—whether physical or functional—can have immediate and tangible consequences on public service delivery.
This is why reforms on attendance and accountability must be institutionalized across all elective posts in the Philippines. Clear standards, enforceable sanctions, and transparency mechanisms should apply universally—not selectively. A “no work, no pay” policy, mandatory reporting of absences, and automatic administrative review for prolonged non-attendance should become standard practice at every level of government.
Anything less would send the wrong message—that accountability depends on position rather than principle.
In the end, the credibility of public office hinges not only on policymaking but also on discipline and presence. Reforming absenteeism rules across all levels of government is not just a procedural fix—it is a necessary step toward restoring public trust and ensuring that those elected to serve are, at the very least, present to do so.
More importantly, any reform must not stop at the Senate.
If absenteeism is a problem at the highest level of legislation, it is likely present—if not worse—across other elective positions, from the House of Representatives to local government units. In fact, House Majority Leader Sandro Marcos has already taken a step in this direction by filing a bill institutionalizing a “no work, no pay” policy for lawmakers—an effort aimed at tying compensation directly to attendance and performance. Governors, mayors, and councilors wield direct influence over people’s daily lives. Their absence—whether physical or functional—can have immediate and tangible consequences on public service delivery.
