Photo credit: Congress PH

Physical attendance during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte is essential and cannot simply be replaced by remote participation, according to House trial spokesperson Zia Alonto Adiong.

Speaking amid the growing debate in the Senate over proposals to allow online voting during plenary sessions and the impeachment trial, Adiong said virtual participation should only be considered during emergencies or force majeure situations.

The Lanao del Sur lawmaker pointed to a recent decision by the House Committee on Justice as an example of how strict rules on physical attendance have already been applied in Congress.

According to Adiong, several lawmakers who supported the motion to determine probable cause for the impeachment complaint against Duterte had asked to vote remotely. However, the request was denied.

“But then the chairperson of the committee on justice declined the request of some of these members to have a remote voting precisely because there's no force majeure, there's no emergency that is happening in this country,” he said.

Adiong stressed that legislative rules are not merely procedural requirements but safeguards meant to protect the credibility and integrity of Congress itself.

“So to me, rules are placed there in order not to maintain procedural matters or to secure the required number of legislators in order to establish a quorum, but the integrity of the legislation itself,” he added.

Despite his position, Adiong said the House would still respect whatever decision the Senate ultimately makes regarding online participation and voting.

“Well, of course, we respect whatever is the decision of the Senate because we have to maintain the institution of the Senate…because we have to maintain an institutional respect to our co-equal branch. But then again, the rules are placed there precisely to protect the integrity of the legislation or the Senate,” he stressed.

Adiong also compared the Senate impeachment court to regular trial courts, saying the physical presence of senator-judges is crucial when evaluating witnesses and evidence.

“Imagine in the Senate, imagine in the impeachment court, ang pinag-uusapan po dito, Constitution, ang pinag-uusapan po dito, no matter how high you have obtained in terms of the positions that you were elected to, ay hindi nangangahulugan na hindi ka aabutin ng accountability mechanism ng ating Constitution,” he said.

He explained that judges do more than simply listen to testimony—they also observe a witness’s behavior, mannerisms, and reactions during questioning.

“Imagine ‘yung isang huwes, in regular courts…it’s really important and indispensable the presence of the judge. In a trial court, kasi ‘pag nandun po ‘yung testigo dyan sa witness stand, the judge also examines and observes the mannerism. ‘Yung nang-testigo, yung kanyang pananalita pag kino-cross-examine ito, importante din po yung kanyang kabuuan na disposition during the cross-examination or pag-presentation ng mga evidence,” Alonto Adiong said.

“So how much more for an exclusive mandate given to the Senate by the Constitution to perform?” Alonto Adiong asked.

The issue comes as tensions continue to build in the Senate over proposed rule changes that would allow lawmakers to participate and vote remotely even outside emergency situations, a move that has drawn criticism from both legal experts and members of the House prosecution team ahead of Duterte’s looming impeachment proceedings.