‘As a rule, reading into the Senate Record entails no second, no objection, no debate, no vote. But it achieves the same results: obeying and respecting the SC decision, archiving the case without using the word archiving and doing so without erroneously assuming jurisdiction.’
FOLLOWING the correct process. Abiding by the correct procedure.
This is what the Supreme Court found wanting in the impeachment of the Vice President by the House of Representatives.
This is what senators asserted in archiving the case in obedience to the SC ruling.
But was that necessary and did the senators follow the rules when they did so?
Let’s review what transpired in the Senate during its legislative session on August 6—emphasis on legislative session as opposed to session as an impeachment court.
Sen. Dante Marcoleta moved to dismiss the impeachment complaint. But he prefaced his motion with a privilege speech in which he stated that:
• the impeachment case tackled in the 19th Congress “did not carry over” to the 20th Congress;
• the impeachment was “deemed terminated at noon of June 30, 2025” (when the 19th Congress adjourned sine die), and “it cannot be miraculously given life” in the 20th Congress; and
• the SC ruled that the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction.
If the senators were aware of Senate and parliamentary rules, there would have been no debate or vote on the motion.
All that was needed was for one Senator to raise a “point of order.”
The motion was out of order because it contradicts itself. The proponent no less pointed out that the Senate had no jurisdiction not only because the SC said so but because the case did not cross over to the present Senate and it was already terminated.
If that’s the case, what was the Senate going to dismiss? And did it have the power to do so?
But by voting on the motion (later amended to archive instead of dismiss), the Senate in effect assumed jurisdiction.
So, they violated the SC ruling, which said the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction.
Besides, the motion, as restated by Sen. Joel Villanueva, was never seconded. Watch the video of the session.
And according to Senate rules, a motion that is not seconded cannot be debated or acted upon. It is automatically lost.
When a motion has been made, it is not to be put to the question or debated until it is seconded.
Since nobody seconded Villanueva’s motion (the amended Marcoleta motion), SP Francis Escudero should have declared the motion lost. No need to vote.
For the nth time, the Senate’s action on the impeachment case was flawed and without effect.
While the Senators insisted on following the rules as the SC said, they didn’t follow their own rules. For example, Sec. 135 of the Senate Rules adopted as supplementary rules the Hinds Precedents—the manual of impeachment of the US Congress. Under the Senate Rules and the Hinds Precedents, a motion to dismiss or archive is not allowed.
But it can be done creatively, as in how the US Senate “dismissed” the articles of impeachment against former US Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas. The proponents of dismissal in the Philippine Senate cited this case to support their dismissal motion. But they didn’t know how it was taken up by the US Senate.
On that session day, the US Senate, after dispensing with business as a legislative body, proceeded to convene as an impeachment court by having the oath administered to the senators and then reconvening as an impeachment court.
Then, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer raised a point of order that the two impeachment articles did not allege conduct that rose to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor as required by the US Constitution. The senators voted to uphold his point of order.
The articles of impeachment having been ruled out of order, Schumer then moved to adjourn the impeachment court sine die because there were no articles of impeachment to consider.
But note: On the record, there was no motion to dismiss—because it is not allowed.
What, then, could our Senate have done within the bounds of its own rules and in keeping with the SC ruling?
All the majority leader has to do is ask to enter the SC decision into the record of the Senate. During the legislative session, he could have simply said: “Mr. President, in accordance with the rules of the Senate, permit me to read and enter into the Senate record GR No. 278353, in the matter of Sara Z, Duterte vs. the House of Representatives declaring null and void the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte.”
The Senate President declares: “Without objection, GR No. 278353 is entered into the record of the Senate.”
As a rule, reading into the Senate Record entails no second, no objection, no debate, no vote. But it achieves the same results: obeying and respecting the SC decision, archiving the case without using the word archiving and doing so without erroneously assuming jurisdiction.
