You're thinking of Pontius Aquila, though you're remembering some things wrong. Suetonius relates that Aquila refused to rise when Caesar passed by the tribunal during his triumph. Aquila was tribune that year, not a part of the senate, and while senators marched behind the triumphator during the procession the tribunes remained seated on the tribunal, and were probably expected to rise before the triumphator. Aquila did not, and Suetonius has Caesar shout out:

repete ergo a me Aquila rem publicam tribunus!'

Then take back the state from me Aquila, you tribune!

Caesar's comment about Aquila's approval was not connected with legislation--Roman magistrates did not sign bills into law, bills immediately became laws as soon as they were passed in the citizen assemblies. Suetonius says that for the next few days Caesar refused to make a promise to anyone (nec destiterit per continuos dies quicquam cuiquam nisi sub exceptione polliceri) unless:

'si tamen per Pontium Aquilam licuerit.'

That is, if it is allowed by Pontius Aquila

Personally, I don't believe either of these episodes took place. Suetonius is a self-admitted gossip, and episodes like this tend to serve a very obvious point as moral indicators, and are included regardless of their truth in fact. Both Appian and Cassius Dio only say that Aquila was one of the conspirators, and leave out this episode entirely, even though it's the sort of thing we'd expect Dio in particular to include. Suetonius includes this episode in the middle of a discussion of Caesar's regality--Suetonius says that it was hypocritical of him to not rise when the senate approached him with honors before the temple of Venus Genetrix yet expect others to rise before him (although Suetonius cannot decide whether Balbus actually prevented Caesar from rising or whether it was his own decision). While Caesar's jab at Aquila not allowing him to make promises carries much of Caesar's characteristic wit, his comments at his triumph are very out of character and seem to me to be made-up--Caesar never stated that he had toppled the state, and there's every indication that he probably didn't see himself as seizing control of the state, but rather as occupying the position of the greatest holder of dignitas within it. No, it seems quite anomalous. If either episode is true, it's the second, the comment about Aquila refusing to let Caesar make promises. Traditionally it's thought that Aquila held property near Naples that Caesar confiscated and gave to Servilia--if this is true, it would give Aquila plenty of reason to bear a grudge against Caesar, and would easily prompt such a jab