Lacson questions minority senators’ vote on bid to unseat Tulfo

Sen. Ping Lacson questioned the motives of three minority senators who voted to revive a petition seeking to unseat Sen. Erwin Tulfo, despite procedural defects that led the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) to reject the motion.

The tribunal voted 6-3 on Friday to deny a motion for reconsideration filed by Berteni Causing, who is seeking to challenge Tulfo’s qualifications as a senator.

“Their motive may be deeper than personal issues against Sen Tulfo,” Lacson said in a post on X on Saturday, referring to the three minority senator-members who voted in favor of the motion.

Lacson argued that the motion was filed beyond the deadline set by the SET’s rules and that Causing had failed to establish his standing to bring the case.

The tribunal also found that the motion did not comply with filing and service requirements and that the amended petition remained insufficient in form.

Causing’s original petition questioned Tulfo’s citizenship, alleged membership in a political dynasty and academic qualifications. The SET dismissed the petition last year, citing deficiencies that included Causing’s failure to establish that he was a registered voter.

Sen. Francis Pangilinan had pointed out that establishing voter registration was a basic requirement for a petition before the tribunal, Lacson said.

Causing filed his motion for reconsideration in April, after the prescribed period had expired. Lacson said the petitioner again failed to allege that he was a qualified voter.

In a separate post, Lacson credited the six SET members who voted against the motion, saying they recognized its procedural defects.

The SET is composed of three Supreme Court justices and six senators. The three minority members are Sens. Pia Cayetano, Robinhood Padilla and Camille Villar, while Sens. Francis Pangilinan, Benigno Aquino IV and Manuel “Lito” Lapid represent the majority bloc.

The tribunal denied the motion without prejudice to the filing of another petition, meaning the ruling did not bar a separate challenge that met its procedural requirements.