De Lima pushes back against comparison to Dela Rosa — Is running away the same as being forced away?
Robel A. Almoguerra Ipinost noong 2026-01-12 00:34:03
MANILA, Philippines — Liberal Party-list Representative Leila de Lima has strongly rejected comparisons between her long absence from Senate sessions and that of Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa. De Lima clarified that her inability to attend sessions was not voluntary but the result of her detention on charges she describes as fabricated by the Duterte administration.
“I could not be physically present in the Senate because I was in detention to face the fabricated charges filed against me then by the Duterte administration. On the other hand, Sen. Bato is running away from possible arrest by the ICC,” De Lima said, highlighting the stark differences in circumstances between the two lawmakers.
The comments come after Senate President Tito Sotto III noted that he would not compel Dela Rosa to attend Senate sessions and drew a comparison with De Lima and former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, who allegedly continued operating their offices even while detained. De Lima dismissed the comparison, stressing that she remained active in her legislative work while in detention, successfully sponsoring bills that eventually became law. She also revealed that several requests to attend sessions or hearings online were denied by the Senate majority at the time.
De Lima’s statement sheds light on the nuanced challenges faced by legislators under duress or political persecution. While absenteeism is often framed simply as neglect, her case illustrates how external circumstances—such as imprisonment or legal harassment—can affect participation without negating dedication or effectiveness.
The situation invites a broader reflection on accountability and fairness in public office. Should absence always be equated with dereliction of duty, or should context—such as political pressure, legal constraints, or personal safety—factor into judgments of a lawmaker’s performance? In the end, one question remains: can true legislative service be measured only by physical presence, or does commitment and output matter more than mere attendance?
