🔴LIVE NOW:Sen.Marcoleta Questions Joel Villanueva in Plenary Gatchalian Sotto Lacson Escudero Top Se

Senator Alan Peter Cayetano on Wednesday said he would not block a new Senate leadership vote but maintained that the legality of the June 3 proceedings remains a constitutional question before the Supreme Court.Sen.Cayetano said the “arithmetic has changed” after speaking with Senator Joel Villanueva.No leadership in a democracy is ever permanent; every office we hold is a loan, never a possession. To whoever this chamber lawfully elects, I extend my congratulations and my cooperation in advance.Cayetano, however, stood by his bloc’s position that the June 3 session that reorganized the Senate was void because it allegedly proceeded without the quorum required by the Constitution.We have said from the first, and we maintain still, that what was done on June 3 was done without the quorum the Constitution requires, and was, for that reason, void. That is not bitterness. It is a constitutional conviction, and it remains where it belongs: before the Court.Cayetano said he never disputed the Senate’s right to choose its leaders, but only the manner by which the leadership change was carried out.Give the Senate a proper vote, with a true quorum, and we will respect its result. That is all we ever asked.He also thanked the senators who stood with his bloc, specifically mentioning Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta, whom he said chose “principle over power and position.Cayetano said the leadership dispute was not about the Senate presidency, but about the "pursuit of truth behind alleged flood-control anomalies involving public funds intended to protect communities from flooding.Sen. Rodante Marcoleta on Monday broke his silence after the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon’s field investigation bureau recommended plunder and indirect bribery complaints against him and his donors over alleged campaign donations worth P75 million.According to the complaint, the campaign donation of three donors breached the P50 million threshold for plunder, and they also said the senator should also be charged for indirect bribery since he was given the amount “because of his position or potential influence as a public officer.Let me state the legal defenses plainly on the allegations against me: The law did not define the limits of liberality among friends. They did not say that friendship must stop at a number chosen by one’s accusers. They did not say that generosity becomes criminal merely because the amount is substantial. What the law forbids is not liberality; it forbids corruption. What it condemns is not friendship; it condemns the sale of public duty. At least I stated the truth. At least I faced the issue. At least I did not hide behind silence.