SENATE President Francis “Chiz” Escudero and minority leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III yesterday traded verbal jabs over the issue of changing the 1987 Constitution.
The exchange of words started after Escudero called out Sotto for saying that he would favor amending the Constitution should the Supreme Court (SC) decide with finality and affirm its July 25 decision invalidating the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte.
In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Escudero chided Sotto for supposedly backing moves to amend the Charter, which he said is being pushed by Speaker Martin Romualdez and his allies.
“Kinampihan na nga po ninyo ang impeachment ng HoR at ni Speaker Martin maski sabi ng SC unconstitutional. Ngayon naman kinakampihan na din ninyo ang Cha-cha ng HoR at ni Speaker Romualdez (You sided with the impeachment of the HoR [House of Representatives] and Speaker Martin. And now, you are again siding with the Cha-cha of HoR and Speaker Romualdez),” Escudero said.
He ended his post with a hashtag, #thesenateisnotyourplayground,” the same remarks that he made when he voted in favor of the motion to archive the impeachment articles against Duterte last week.
Aside from Escudero, 18 other senators voted to archive the Articles of Impeachment, while Sotto and three other senators voted against. There was one abstention.
Asked to comment on Escudero’s post, Sotto denied that he was taking sides with anyone.
“Wala akong kinakampihan tulad nila. Ang kinakampihan ko ay Ang Constitution (I am not in favor of anybody unlike them. I am taking the side of the Constitution),” he said.
He clarified: “What I said was, if the SC ruling stands as is and the Constitution is amended by merely a SC decision, then I will consider supporting a constituent assembly or a constitutional convention to rewrite Article XI of the Constitution because the requirements written in the SC decision are impossible to meet.”
In its motion for reconsideration, the House of Representatives, through the Office of the Solicitor General, questioned the imposition by the SC of “retroactive due process rules” in favor of Duterte, saying that the action deprived the House of its exclusive power to initiate cases of impeachment.
The motion assailed the reasoning in the SC decision wherein the magistrates decreed new rules to be followed with respect to impeachment proceedings at the House and new doctrines regarding the reckoning point of the one-year bar and what may trigger it.
It added that these are new standards that the House, in any case, should not be held to prior to their creation.
The House’s position is echoed by three other similar motions filed before the SC, including the petition submitted by retired SC justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio Morales.
HOUSE CON-CON
At the House, Deputy Speaker Ronaldo Puno of Antipolo City called for the convening of a constitutional convention (con-con) to amend the Charter to address what he described as “enduring ambiguities” and deficiencies that weaken its legal foundations and degrade its reliability as the fundamental law of the land.
In a privileged speech, Puno, the chairman of the National Unity Party (NUP), pointed to instances in which “ambiguous provisions and textual flaws weakened the Charter’s legal foundations.”
He particularly cited the Senate leadership’s interpretation of the word “forthwith” in Article XI, Section 3(4) on impeachment, “which should have been a procedural safeguard against delay, but has instead become a source of deadlock and controversy.”
Escudero has drawn heavy flak for not convening the impeachment court immediately after the House of Representatives sent the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate last February, even if the Charter clearly states that the trial shall be held “forthwith.”
Puno said this issue has raised serious “constitutional and jurisprudential questions.”
“Does the legislature now view the recent interpretation of ‘forthwith’ as applicable to all similar clauses in the Charter? Can the clear urgency mandated by constitutional language now be indefinitely stalled under the guise of interpretive discretion?” Puno asked.
He said the “forthwith” case alone shows how a single ambiguous word “can become the justification for legislative inaction, procedural manipulation, or worse, the loss of accountability itself.”
“A Constitution that fails to provide clear, unambiguous guidance undermines its own purpose as the country’s fundamental law. When its wording is subject to multiple interpretations, the predictability of law dissolves, opening the door to legal confusion and arbitrary application,” Puno said.
Puno said a con-con is “the most prudent, transparent and participatory mechanism” to correct vague provisions and institute much-needed reforms in the 1987 Charter.”
He said his proposal “is not a call to discard the Constitution. It is a call to complete and correct it.”
The former interior secretary said convening a con-con would allow the people, “through their chosen delegates, to correct textual deficiencies, reconcile contradictions, remove ambiguities, institutionalize much-needed reform, and ensure that the foundational law of the land meets the needs of a dynamic and democratic society.”
Puno said such a route would ensure “singularity of purpose,” and would “free delegates from being preoccupied or derailed by lawmaking, oversight functions, and impeachment concerns.”
“Conflict of interest would be avoided, broader representation guaranteed, and the risk of political expediency is reduced,” he added. – With Wendell Vigilia
