SEN. Panfilo Lacson yesterday said sending the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte to the archives rendered it “practically dead,” but it is better than dismissal, which he said removes any means of reviving it should the Supreme Court reverse its decision declaring the impeachment complaint null and void ab initio.
“I take pride in being the one who played a major role in questioning the motion to dismiss. If the motion had prevailed, the case would be moot and academic even if the Supreme Court reversed its decision,” he said in Filipino in an interview with radio dzMM.
Lacson was one of the senators who strongly opposed dismissing the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte after Sen. Rodante Marcoleta, during Wednesday night’s session, moved to dismiss the case as the SC has ruled it as unconstitutional for violating the one-year bar rule.
Senate minority leader Vicente Sotto III blocked the motion, saying it would be better if the Senate just lay the case on the table while they are waiting for the SC to come up with a decision on the motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives.
Sotto’s motion was put to a vote, but lost, with 19 senators voting in the negative, and five in favor, with no abstentions.
Marcoleta’s motion was amended by Sen. Joel Villanueva, not Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano as earlier reported, which was to archive the impeachment complaint, which was then approved by 19 senators, with four voting against, while Lacson abstained.
Lacson said he questioned the motion to dismiss the case since he does not want to be part of a proceeding “that would effectively kill the Articles of Impeachment.”
“It’s like the Senate is preempting the Supreme Court. But I don’t want to defy the Supreme Court’s initial ruling that the complaint is unconstitutional either. So, I abstained,” he added.
Now that the case is archived, Lacson said it can be resuscitated although it will take a motion and a new round of debates and voting.
“The implication of a motion to dismiss prevailing is that if the Supreme Court grants the House’s motion for reconsideration, the Senate no longer has basis to act because it has dismissed the complaint and that is a bad thing,” he said.
He said such scenario would run counter to the arguments of some senators who are in favor of dismissing the case that the SC’s initial ruling must be respected.
“Now, if the Supreme Court reverses its ruling, will those favoring the dismissal of the case respect it? I can throw their argument back at them by questioning their previous explanation,” he said.
Lacson is confident that there is a possibility of the SC reversing its decision since it has ordered the Vice President to comment on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the House.
“This is not a common occurrence. Usually the High Court would just issue a one-sentence minute resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. But in this case, it ordered the Vice President to comment. What we must now look out for is its order for arguments — which means the Supreme Court is open to reconsidering or to review it decision …There is still an opening. Marcoleta’s claim that the possibility of the SC reversing its ruling is speculative is as speculative as his claim that it will not reverse its ruling,” he added.
MAJORITY VOTE
Senate deputy minority leader Risa Hontiveros said while the Articles of Impeachment may not be totally dead, it will take a majority vote to revive it.
“It will be hard to bring it out of the archives. That’s too much, so to speak. The motion to table the complaint should be enough since it means that we will just set it aside … Taking it out of the archives is not that simple since we will again need a majority vote to do it,” Hontiveros said in an interview with radio dzBB, in Filipino.
She said the impeachment trial could have been the chance for the Filipino people to see the evidence against Duterte.
But if the impeachment complaint will not be revived, she said the proponents of the case will have to wait until February 6 next year when the one-year bar rule is lifted.
She said Sotto was right in moving to table the case while they are waiting for the SC to rule on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the House.
Sen. Imee Marcos said archiving of the complaint is “dead” but it is not really buried. She did not elaborate.
Senate President Francis Escudero said certain camps pushing for the impeachment complaint “sidestepped” the provision of the Constitution, and warned them not to use the upper chamber to run after their enemies hindering their personal political agenda.
Escudero did not identify who he was referring to as “certain camps.”
In his manifestation for his vote to archive the Articles of Impeachment on Wednesday night, Escudero said he respects the Supreme Court’s decision and it is only right to abide by it.
He said those who refuse to accept with humility when the court has already decided “is plain arrogance or if at all, a power play.”
In the past few months, he said varying opinions had constantly changed about how fast the Senate should proceed with the complaint and how the Constitution should be interpreted.
“At one point, they thought only the High Court was the decider. Now they have turned their back on the Court when the decision did not go their way. They are now peddling their legal theories, urging the body to substitute their wisdom for that of the Supreme Court’s, even though we are not vested with that power,” he said.
He said the majority votes showed that the Senate “stands ready to uphold the integrity of the Constitution, as well as the institutions created under it.”
He then asked those seeking to disregard the High Court ruling whether they are for the rule of law or “simply anti-Duterte?”
“Do you truly respect and want to preserve the Constitution or simply hate the Vice President? Are you serving the nation’s interest or protecting or pursuing your personal ambitions or agenda? Are you fighting for truth or are simply after revenge? Do you really want a trial or just a conviction? Do you really believe that we are wrong or do you simply feel entitled and believe that you’re always right?” he said.
“Let today’s verdict be a stern and unequivocal warning to anyone who would dare use the Senate as their personal battering ram to further their personal political ambitions… Let history record that in this moment, we chose the Constitution, we chose the rule of law by defending the integrity of the Supreme Court and maintaining the system of checks and balances under our republican system of government,” he added.
PREMATURE
Sen. Francis Pangilinan said the majority decision to archive the complaint was “premature and a tepid rather than a vigorous response in defending the Senate’s sole power to try and decide impeachment cases” amid the SC ruling.
“Impeachment is not merely a political exercise that can be set aside for convenience or expediency. The Constitution specifically provides impeachment as a mechanism to ensure that our top official remain answerable to the people. Archiving the Articles of Impeachment while a pending Motion for Reconsideration is pending before the Supreme Court is disrespectful of a co-equal and most unfortunate. It is the Senate getting ahead of itself,” Pangilinan said.
Pangilinan was one of the five senators who voted in favor of laying the complaint on the table while waiting for the SC to issue a ruling on the motion for reconsideration filed by the House.
The motion, however, lost with 19 senators voting against.
He also voted against the archiving of the complaint.
He said voting “no” to archive the complaint does not mean disrespect to the SC ruling, since the High Court’s decision is not yet final, though immediately executory.
He said voting to archive the complaint is “premature” as the SC ruling may still be reversed or modified.
“Mr. President, I voted ‘no’ because I believe that it is better to wait for the Supreme Court resolution for the motion for reconsideration. In addition to that is the recognition of the principle of co-equality with the House of Representatives, the inter-chamber courtesy, the respect for a co-equal body,” he said in his manifestation for a “no” vote on Wednesday night.
He said sending the complaint to the archives is against the constitutional mandate given to the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, to solely try and decide on impeachment complaints.
“Allow me to reiterate that the final decision of the Supreme Court, yes, must be accepted. The Supreme Court ruled that the impeachment court did not acquire jurisdiction. And its ruling rendered the official acts of convening as a court, of taking the oath, issuing of summons, and remanding the complaint as, for all intents and purposes, nullified. Kaya ang tinanong ko kanina, ‘ano na ang nangyari sa constitutional duty and constitutional power as sole power to try and decide impeachment cases? (That’s why I earlier asked, what happened to the [Senate’s] constitutional duty and constitutional power as sole power to try and decide impeachment cases?)”
