Won’t hold trial of VP Sara until SC reverses earlier ruling
SENATORS did not dismiss the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte but instead had it “archived” – which means no trial will happen until the Supreme Court reverses its earlier ruling junking the Articles of Impeachment.
Majority of the members of the Upper Chamber voted to support the motion to archive of Senator Rodante Marcoleta, while four voted against (Senators Tito Sotto, Risa Hontiveros, Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan) and one abstained (Senator Panfilo Lacson).
Senator Alan Cayetano said archiving the complaint meant that while it is considered dead for now, it can be revived should the High Court reverse its ruling amid pending motions for reconsideration.
Marcoleta initially made a motion to dismiss the complaint against Duterte, noting that the High Court already ruled it was unconstitutional for violating the one-year ban on multiple impeachment proceedings against an official.
He eventually amended it to a motion to archive after his original motion triggered a heated debate among his colleagues.
Senate President Francis Escudero, who backed Marcoleta’s amended motion, had strong words for the House of Representatives.
“To the House of Representatives, I say do not allow yourselves to be used for the blind hatred and ambition of a few…To these people I say this: The Senate is not your playground to run after your political enemies,” the Senate President said.
Cayetano, who also voted yes to the motion to archive, said: “If the Vice President really committed an impeacheable offense, then let us impeach her. But let us do so in the proper manner.”
Senator Bong Go, who also voted to archive the complaint, added: “The Supreme Court has already spoken in crystal clear language, the Court unanimously voted that the articles of impeachment against the Vice President are unconstitutional.”
Lacson, the lone abstention, explained his vote: “I would rather wait, not preempt the final ruling of the high court. It is for these reasons that I abstain.”
Hontiveros said of her “no” vote: “The 1987 Constitution entrusted the duty to try and decide all cases of impeachment to the Senate. Today we are voting to abandon this mandate…It is our institution that killed the articles of impeachment.”
The original motion Marcoleta was met by strong opposition from Senate Minority Leader Tito Sotto, who moved to table the motion to dismiss.
Sotto said it was “not impossible” for the SC to reverse itself and a hasty dismissal could be dangerous and be seen as an act of bad faith on the part of the Upper Chamber.
“Just to remind everyone, the reversal of the Supreme Court’s own decision is not impossible, even in landmark cases,” Sotto said.
Lacson also said there is no motion to dismiss under the Upper Chamber’s rules, while Senators Francis Pangilinan and Hontiveros said the issue could be resolved if the Senate convenes as an impeachment court.
Hontiveros said the Supreme Court decision, while immediately executory, has not yet “attained finality.”
“Evern the Supreme Court is waiting for the comment of the Vice President. We should exercise prudence in this matter of transcendental importance,” she said.
Escudero, however, cited a previous action to “archive” during the impeachment complaints against then President Joseph Estrada and then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.
Cayetano suggested to Marcoleta to amend his motion to have the impeachment complaint archived instead even as the Upper Chamber obeys the SC ruling.
Voting 19-5 against Sotto’s motion to table, senators proceeded to vote on Marcoleta’s amended motion to have the complaint archived instead.
Meanwhile, Antonio Bucoy, spokesperson of the House of Representatives’ prosecution panel in the impeachment case, said the Supreme Court has made it significantly more difficult to impeach high-ranking public officials by imposing additional, previously non-existent requirements.
“You will now have to go through the eye of the needle to hold a guilty public official accountable,” Bucoy said.
He said the SC ruling went against the plain language of the 1987 Constitution and could discourage legitimate efforts to hold powerful officials accountable.
He added the impeachment is designed not to protect powerful individuals but to safeguard the broader public interest.
Malacañang, for its part, said President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos will not interfere in whatever action the Senate may take on the impeachment proceedings.
“Whatever happens in the Senate on this matter is in their hands. The President will not intervene in the work of the Senate,” said Presidential Communications Office Undersecretary Claire Castro.
“To the senators, just do your job. If there are those who must be held accountable, then they should be.”
“It is better, and it is also the President’s desire, that we follow the proper process and the law. Whatever the senators believe is right and lawful, that is what they should follow,” she added.
