‘Marcoleta, Jinggoy can keep Senate panel posts, but…’

Senators Rodante Marcoleta and Jinggoy Estrada attend the Senate plenary session, May 4, 2026.

Senate of the Philippines / Released

MANILA, Philippines — Detained Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta can continue to hold committee memberships and file legislation despite their incarceration, but they will not be allowed to vote during plenary sessions, Sen. Erwin Tulfo said yesterday.

Addressing earlier statements by Sen. Imee Marcos regarding ongoing negotiations for the detained senators’ committee assignments, Tulfo emphasized that Estrada and Marcoleta remain duly elected officials who are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

“If you ask me, they are still senators, right? They have not been convicted, so in my view, they are innocent until proven guilty,” Tulfo said over GMA News, adding that the Senate would also review its rules to ensure compliance.

Tulfo pointed to the precedent set by former senator Leila de Lima, who continued to function as a legislator and held committee memberships despite her incarceration.

Because of this precedent, the senator said Estrada and Marcoleta should be given the same treatment.

Earlier, Marcoleta urged his colleagues to find a way for him and Estrada to participate in legislative and impeachment proceedings.

Currently, 26 of the Senate’s 41 committees have yet to complete their membership, with most of the vacant positions expected to be filled by minority senators.

Opposed

Estrada has filed his opposition to the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration of the Sandiganbayan Second Division’s ruling rejecting the bid to drop former public works secretary Manuel Bonoan as an accused and instead declare him state witness in a graft case involving an alleged kickback scheme in flood control projects.

Estrada argued that allowing Bonoan to be dropped as a co-accused would change the accusation against him and make his defense difficult.

He said the proposed amendment to the criminal information “alters the prosecution’s theory” and would prejudice him, saying such amendment was a “complete surprise” as he had already prepared his defense on the premise that there was no such conspiracy between him and Bonoan.

He noted that the original information alleged conspiracy between two co-conspirators, one of whom was Bonoan, with respect to a flood control project.

Dropping the former department chief, he argued, would effectively change the prosecution’s theory “substantially.”

“Apart from violating the accused’s right to due process, any substantial amendment in the information will burden the accused in preparing for his or her defense,” it said. — Daphne Galvez