Sunday, June 22, 2025

Is Escudero scared of Sara? solon asks

- Advertisement -

HOUSE members yesterday objected to more delays in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, with a progressive lawmaker going so far as to question whether Senate President Francis Escudero is having cold feet because of the accused.

“Is he (Escudero) scared of Sara Duterte? Convening the Senate as an impeachment court is a solemn constitutional duty, not a seasonal accessory you put on or discard depending on the political weather, or one’s personal agenda. It is a uniform of duty worn whenever the Constitution demands it,” said Akbayan party-list Rep. Perci Cendaña.

At the Senate, deputy minority leader Risa Hontiveros said the delays in impeachment “are no longer procedural” because the upper chamber is mandated by the Constitution to proceed with the trial now that Congress has resumed regular sessions.

- Advertisement -

“They (delays) are obstructions dressed up as protocol. The impeachment process is a crucial means of demanding accountability exclusively entrusted by the people to the Senate. Hindi ko yan balak talikuran (I have no intention of abandoning that duty),” Hontiveros said.

She made the statement after Escudero last week said the formal presentation of the Articles of Impeachment by the House of Representatives prosecution panel has been re-scheduled to June 11 from June 2.

Escudero said this was to give way to the passage of priority measures before the 19th Congress adjourns sine die on June 13.

The presentation of the Articles of Impeachment will trigger the Senate to convene as an impeachment court.

Escudero, responding yesterday to questions as to why he did not convene the Senate as an impeachment court last Monday’s plenary session, said no senator “moved” to create the impeachment court.

In a chance interview, Escudero said a number of senators may have manifested their stand on the whether the impeachment trial can or cannot cross over to the 20th Congress, but they were “all manifestations.”

“Everything we do must be in accordance with parliamentary practice and rules. And for something to move, someone must move. So, if they are mere manifestations, they will be duly noted for the record,” Escudero said in Filipino.

He said that even the Senate convening as an impeachment court needs make a motion from one of their colleagues.

“As an example, everything we do during the SONA is based on the Constitution. Someone will make a motion and say that ‘I move that we adjourn so that we can hear and listen to the SONA of the President. Any objection? Hearing none, it’s approved. Everything must be done according to the right process),” he said.

BETRAYAL

Cendaña, endorser of the first impeachment complaint filed before the House of Representatives, warned that the Senate’s inaction risks being seen as a betrayal of its constitutional mandate and a deliberate attempt to shield the Vice President from accountability.

He noted a results of a recent Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey that showed nearly nine in 10 Filipinos want Duterte to respond directly to the impeachment charges and clear her name of corruption allegations.

The poll likewise showed that 68 percent of respondents believe Duterte should face the charges while only 7 percent believe she should avoid the issue altogether.

“The public wants a trial. Even the impeached Vice President herself has signaled a willingness to face one. What’s stopping the Senate? Is the Senate leadership afraid of Sara? You can’t delay this indefinitely. You have to do your duty,” Cendaña said.

He called on Escudero to act with resolve and convene the Senate as an impeachment court, swear in the senators as judges, and allow the prosecution to read the charges.

“Every day of delay sends the message that the Senate leadership is either afraid of Vice President Duterte, or worse, actively protecting her,” he said.

‘LEGAL FICTION’

Cendaña disputed the view that the impeachment complaint from the 19th Congress cannot be carried over to the 20th Congress as pure “legal fiction.”

“The impeachment process is a constitutional mandate, not a legislative bill that expires at the stroke of midnight. Once the House transmitted the Articles of Impeachment, the Senate is constitutionally bound to convene as an impeachment court — no ifs, no buts. The delay, and now the flimsy excuses, only add insult to institutional injury,” said Cendaña.

- Advertisement -spot_img

Mel Sta. Maria, former dean of the Far Eastern University Institute of Law dean, said in an opinion piece posted on his official Facebook page that there is no functional dismissal of an impeachment complaint even if the 19th Congress terminates, noting that the legislative functions of the chamber is separate and distinct from its quasi-judicial duties.

“The Senate as a quasi-judicial body in an impeachment is not covered by the said rule on legislation because the senators are not acting as legislators. They are acting as judges. The procedures are necessarily different,” he pointed out.

Sta. Maria also explained that as a matter of law and practicality, non-termination must apply “because if a body is acting judicially or quasi-judicially, once jurisdiction attaches to that body, like the Senate, it cannot be divested of its jurisdiction by a mere change in the judges.”

“By analogy, if Judge A was trying the case of accused M, and then the presentation of evidence had already been terminated and, before deciding, Judge A died, the case will not be “functionally dismissed” just because the Judge A died. The decision-making will be assumed by the new judge. Public accountability cannot be unduly constricted by technical procedures,” he added.

NO IFS, NO BUTS

Incoming Mamamayang Liberal party-list Rep. Leila de Lima, a former senator and justice secretary, said the Senate is not allowed by the Constitution to pussyfoot about starting the impeachment trial, but four months after the House transmitted the articles of impeachment against Duterte, it has yet to move forward.

“The Constitution is clear: Once the House transmits an impeachment complaint to the Senate, it is the Senate’s constitutional duty to convene as an impeachment court — no ifs, no buts, no excuses. Huwag na tayong maglokohan (Let us stop kidding ourselves). This is no longer about legal preparedness. This is about political will,” she said.

She called out the Senate leadership for deploying delaying tactics to divert public attention and shield the powerful from accountability.

“This is not merely a question of whether the Vice President will be convicted. This is about whether the truth will even be allowed into the room. Whether the evidence will see the light of day. Whether the Senate will do its job, or quietly surrender its role as the last forum of accountability,” De Lima said.

“When powerful figures are accused of grave abuse, silence is complicity. Delay is betrayal. To the Senate: You are not gatekeepers of convenience. You are stewards of the Constitution. The responsibility now rests on your shoulders. You must rise to meet it. Let the trial begin,” she added.

MANDATE

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano said convening the impeachment court is a constitutional mandate of senators and voting on a simple majority whether it will continue or not “doesn’t make it right.”

“If it is a constitutional mandate, you have to do it … Voting is needed if we implement it and apply it to the 24 senators. But that doesn’t make it right just because we voted for or against it),” he said in Filipino.

He said a constitutional mandate cannot be overturned by a vote of simple majority.

Authors

- Advertisement -

Share post: