House reduces Alvarez penalty to censure from 60-day suspension

MANILA, Philippines — The House of Representatives on Wednesday decided to censure Davao del Norte 1st District Rep. Pantaleon Alvarez instead of the initial recommendation to suspend him for 60 days over «unparliamentary and inappropriate statements which reflected negatively upon the dignity, integrity, and reputation of the House.»

Rep. Felimon Espares of the party-list Coop Natcco, chairman of the House Committee on Ethics and Privileges, said at the plenary that the decision was made after «thorough and extensive» deliberations.

The committee first recommended Alvarez's suspension but which was later downgraded to censure upon the motion of Camiguin Rep. Jurdin Jesus Romualdo, to which no one objected.

Romualdo had, in a speech after the recommendation was heard at the plenary, said that «the committee acknowledged that they (Alvarez's statements) were emotional expressions rather than intentional calls for actual harm or further political consequences.»

«In the humble opinion of this representation,… the severity of a 60-day suspension appears disproportionate to the nature and context of his misconduct,» Romualdo said.

Northern Samar 1st District Rep. Paul Daza supported reducing the penalty, saying that «while acknowledging the seriousness of the statements made by our former speaker Alvarez, censure serves as a sufficient measure to address that misconduct without unduly impacting the ability to serve his constituents.»

The findings and recommendation in the committee's report was adopted as amended with a vote of 186-5 and 7 abstentions.

Ilocos Norte 1st District Rep. Ferdinand Alexander Marcos, son of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., was among those who abstained.

Alvarez reportedly had asked, during a rally last month in Tagum City, the military to peacefully withdraw its support for the President to force him to resign and prevent an escalation of the tension between the country and China in the West Philippine Sea.

Alvarez later asked how his statement was seditious, after several of his colleagues at the House had criticized his call.

Alvarez said that his message was protected by the 1987 Constitution's freedom of speech provision, thus