IN the aftermath of the shooting incident that created panic and confusion within the Senate premises last week, Malacañang clarified on Monday that the legislative chamber was never in a state of siege or subjected to any form of assault.
The official stance directly contradicts earlier pronouncements made by Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano, who had publicly claimed that the institution was under threat amid attempts by authorities to serve an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant against Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa.
Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Claire Castro emphasized that available footage and reports clearly show no hostile action or external aggression directed against the Senate or its members.
“Was it under attack? It was not. The Senate was not under attack, you can see that in the news. It was a statement only by Senate President Alan Cayetano,” Castro stated during a regular press briefing. She explained that the confusion stemmed from how the situation was framed by Senate leadership, rather than from actual hostile activity.
The incident occurred last Wednesday, when tension peaked as National Bureau of Investigation agents arrived to execute the ICC warrant against Dela Rosa, who faces charges related to his alleged role in the previous administration’s anti‑drug campaign. Amid the standoff, gunshots were heard inside the building, which Cayetano cited as proof that the security and independence of the Senate were being violated.
By dismissing the “attack” narrative, the Palace shifts the focus from an alleged institutional threat to what appears to be a dispute over the proper execution of legal processes versus legislative autonomy. Castro’s clarification suggests that the incident was essentially a law enforcement operation that escalated due to resistance and misrepresentation, rather than an assault on the Senate as a branch of government. This official position reinforces the view that the events — including the subsequent escape of Dela Rosa before dawn on Thursday — must be examined through the lens of accountability and compliance with the rule of law, rather than as an issue of one branch overstepping its authority against another.
