At least five members of the House of Representatives disagreed on Monday, Dec. 1 with the recommendation to impose a 60-day suspension without pay to "congressmeow" Cavite 4th district Rep. Francisco "Kiko" Barzaga.

Giving a negative vote each to the recommendation of the Committee on Ethics and Privileges were SAGIP Party-list Rep. Paolo Marcoleta, Kamanggagawa Party-list Rep. Eli San Fernando, Bagong Henerasyon Party-list Rep. Robert Nazal, Quezon CIty 4th district Rep. Bong Suntay, and Batangas 1st district Rep. Leandro Legarda Leviste.

While their votes were all for naught as 249 of their House colleagues chose to uphold the ethics panel-endorsed suspension, the five solons were still able to express in plenary the reasons for their opposition.

"I rise to place on record this manifestation of support for honorable Francisco "Kiko" Barzaga and to express my strong opposition to any move seeking his suspension from this august chamber," said Rep. Marcoleta, son of Senator Rodante Marcoleta.

Rep. Marcoleta echoed Barzaga's main defense in his ethics case, in that the latter was merely exercising his freedom of expression when it comes to his rage-baiting and sometimes lewd social media posts.

It was these posts--24 of them to be exact--that became the main subject of the ethics case filed against him by 29 members of the National Unity Party (NUP).

"From Voltaire's philosophy of tolerance and freedom of expression, this line of often quoted: 'I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' The independence of the legislature ensures that members may speak fully, frankly, and fearlessly on matters of public interest," Rep. Marcoleta said.

"Honorable Barzaga's statements directed at corruption within the government falls within the urgent falls within the fullest and most urgent category of political expression. To penalize him for raising concerns on corruption which the Constitution itself mandates Congress to check is to subject the very principle of parliamentary privilege," he added.

San Fernando used a similar theme in his explanation of his "no" vote.

"Totoo na maraming nasabi, pinahayag at ginawa ang kinatawang si Rep. Barzaga na hindi aakma sa pamantayang inaasahan sa isang halal na opisyal (It is true that Representative Barzaga has said, declared, and done many things that do not fit the standards expected of an elected official)," he said.

"While I agree that us lawmakers are held to a higher degree of ethics and decorum, such should not work as to stifle free speech and debate. Lawmakers must be free to say what we want, especially on issues involving national importance," argued San Fernando.

Referring to his eccentric colleague from Dasmariñas City, San Fernando said: "Rep. Barzaga's actioms and words may not fit the usual mold of a traditional lawmaker, but who decides if the mold or what mold is correct?"

He further claimed that the ethics panel's resolution "sets a dangerous precedent".

"Ganito ho ba tayo kabalat-sibuyas at allergic sa mga naiibang pananaw? (Are we this onion-skinned and allergic to contrary views?) Should our subjective judgements of Rep. Barzaga's ethics supplant the will of the electorate?" he asked.

San Fernando said it would be best to leave to it to Barzaga's constituents whether or not they want him to be their representative in Congress.

For his part, Nazal said he found penalty of a two-month suspension without salary or allowances too harsh.

"My vote of 'no' reflects two deeply-held convictions. First, although the respondent's conduct was inappropriate, crass, and unbecoming of a member of Congress, I respectfully submit that the proposed 60-day suspension is grossly disproportionate to the offenses alleged," he said.

"If he has indeed acted beneath the dignity of his office, then by all means reprimand him, hold him into account. But discipline must also be commensurate to the transgression, and in this case I believe this august chamber is responding with excessive severity," Nazal said.

He reckoned that a reprimand should have been the "proper first recourse" against Barzaga, "especially while the conduct--while objectionable--does not involve corruption, criminality, abuse of authority or behaviour so grave as to render a member unfit for office".

Nazal continued: "Second, voting 'no' does not mean condoning his acts; it is instead a principled affirmation that fairness and due process are indispensable."

He also faulted the ethics committee's resolution for not specifying the actions that the 27-year-old lawmaker was being sanctioned for. "Without such clarity, how can he meaningfully defend himself before the entire House?"

Nazal added a reprimand "would have been the appropriate, proportionate, and constitutionally sound response".

A total of 11 House members abstained during nominal voting.