Category: constitution

“Extra-constitutional musings”

Until now, the Senate has been savaged by lawyers, law deans, law students and even plain housewives for allegedly failing to do what the Constitution commands. Some of them may have even begun to believe that an extra-constitutional option would be a better alternative. By going to trial now, and making sure the trial works, the Senate could effectively put these extra- constitutional musings to rest and reassure the nation that the impeachment process still works and should be given a chance. There would be no need to mobilize public sentiment, as some sectors seem to believe they should be doing, in favor of some costly alternative. https://www.manilatimes.net/

That’s from “The Senate and its discontents” by former Senator Francisco “Kit” Tatad, one of the 11 who refused to open the second envelope, circa Erap. Interesting that he brings up the notion of “an extra-constitutional option” — meron nga ba? Parang wala.

If in the 20th Senate, the VP’s allies have enough votes to manage to dismiss the case without convening as an Impeachment Court, on whatever grounds, a walkout by the opposing Senators, even if supported by The People (as in Edsa Dos) would not necessarily compel the VP to resign. And even if she were to resign, she could still run for president in 2028 even if she may be guilty of betraying public trust atbp.

*

Thanks to former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban for calling out the Senate in his column today: “Senators, do you know where the impeachment proceeding is going to?”

To the Supreme Court where the 20th Congress and the lawyers may delay and scuttle it till forgotten by our people?

To the waste basket, never mind the people’s cry for accountability (credible polls say that a vast majority—from 78 to 88 percent—of our people want accountability and transparency)?

To embarrass the VP who expressed a desire to clear her name via due process from her alleged maltreatment by the HOR?

To the battle in July 2025 for the election of the senate president of the 20th Congress who would thereafter preside over the reconvening of the IC?

To be fair, I did not identify the senator-judges alluded to though readers could name them based on what they saw and heard during the live coverage of the IC sessions, and on printed media reports. I leave it to their discretion as elected public officials to retain the public trust by answering the questions in the song popularized by the chanteuse Diana Ross. https://opinion.inquirer.net/

*

And then my YouTube algo came up with a Doris Bigornia phone interview of Senator-elect Tito Sotto who has changed his tune, now agrees that the Impeachment Court continues into the 20th Senate. BUT he’s saying that it’s the Chief Justice who should be the Presiding Officer of the Impeachment Court, as when a president is impeached, because the VP’s office and duties are more like the president’s, or something like that. Also, that if the VP is impeached, it’s the Senate Prez who becomes Acting VP until the prez appoints a new one, which means “ikaw pa ang tratraidor sa papalitan mo” … a confict of interest for the SP, who can also be replaced even while the prez has yet to appoint a new VP,  or something like that. https://www.youtube.com/

For a very brief moment there, it sounded reasonable, but is it even possible to have the Chief Justice preside in the VP’s impeachment without amending the Constitution?  I emailed CJ Panganiban forthwith and here’s his reply, also forthwith:

The Constitution provides that the Senate President presides except when the President is the respondent in which case the CJ presides. There is only one exception, we cannot add another whether by our wise judgment or by far fetched logic.

So there. Which brings me back to “extra-constitutional musings” and how to get the DDS allies in the Senate to behave as honorable senators should, like recuse, or restrain themselves until we’ve all heard all of the evidence. How ironic that we succeeded in removing two presidents but can’t do anything about a Senate that threatens to acquit an impeached vice president without a hearing.

Why the Constitution has to be defended

Tony La Viña

For three years now, the Constitution has been under relentless attack, and ironically it is the President, whose oath of office commits him to execute and defend it, who is leading the assault.

Among others, the Bill of Rights has been disregarded in the conduct of the war against drugs, in the fight against insurgency, in retaliating against human rights defenders, and in suppressing political dissent by going after opposition figures like Senators Leila De Lima and Antonio Trillanes. The doctrine of separation of powers has been set aside, notably in the ouster of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and in criticism by the President of independent accountability mechanisms like the Commission on Audit and the Commission on Human Rights.

And now, the sacred constitutional cow of our national territory is tossed aside in defense of a failed policy of appeasement with China.

We live in perilous times. Unfolding before us, the constitutional order is being destroyed. In the name of our children who must be saved from shabu, promising to eradicate all corruption and to end an insurgency without addressing its roots, and out of misplaced friendship to and an unfounded fear of war against China, the Constitution is being buried by a lawyer-president aided by fellow lawyers trained in sophistry and not with Socratic wisdom.

Why should we care?  Read on…