Category: impeachment

Are the Supremes and the Senate in cahoots?

Puwede namang hindi na lang naki-alam ang Korte Suprema, lalo na’t they practically changed, and added to, the rules, in a hair-splitting kind of way, by unanimous vote yet, which has lost the Court a lot of credibility. What if they had stayed out of it instead, left it to the Senate to deal with the Articles of Impeachment, dismiss it with or without a hearing, and let the Senate thereafter be answerable, accountable, to the people who elected them.

We have no such recourse with regard to the Supremes, and that is so unfair. We’re expected to just take their word for it — null and void, ab initio — no matter what we think, kahit may pinag-aralan at nag-iisip at nakakaintindi rin naman kahit hindi tayo abogado.

The mindset is, the Supremes know best when it comes to the rule of law, and that it is best, too, for the country that we all bow to the the wisdom of “the gods of Padre Faura” because theirs is the final say, never mind if we’re not quite persuaded (more like blindsided) by the ponente’s looooong-winded arguments [97 pages of text and footnote], because to insist daw that the Senate ignore the Supremes is to be a “banana republic” kasi ang ibig sabihin, wala tayong “rule of law”.

Thank goodness that former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna have weighed in:

CJ PANGILINAN: … I would have favored – if I were still an incumbent – the issuance of a Status Quo Ante order requiring the parties to maintain the current situation. … As part of due process, I would have asked for Oral Argument before promulgating any decision. If the Court had patiently heard Oral Argument on less important problems like the recognition of foreign divorces and the PhilHealth petitions, why not on this monumental case? In the least, if only to accord respect to a coequal branch of the government, the HOR, I would have called for Oral Argument before making up my mind and casting my vote.

J. AZCUNA:  THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT BE THE ONE TO CRAFT THE RULES TO ENFORCE ART XI OF THE CONSTITUTION. … the Supreme Court members are themselves impeachable officials. So they cannot be the ones to define the rules for their own possible impeachment. This would go against the very heart of due process— No one can be the judge in one’s own case. [CAPS Azcuna’s]

Beyond that and more, from the likes of Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and lawyer Christian Monsod, a framer of the ’87 Constitution  https://www.youtube.com/, my beef is with the timing. February 18 pa noong nag-file ang bigtime abogados ni VP Sara ng petition to nullify the Articles of Impeachment. What took the Court so long?

Check out SP Chiz‘s July 29 statement to the press re the July 25 null-and-void sound effects from the Supreme Court that I bothered to transcribe, for the record. He sounds like he’s feeling quite vindicated about redefining “forthwith” and allowing the “remand”. Totoo kaya ang chismis na linigawan niya at ng isang DDS senator ang Korte Suprema to intervene when, and in the way, they did? Perhaps to spare not just VP Sara but also the Senate from the inevitable intramurals? Or coincidence lang, synchronicity baga, na on the same wavelength siya at ang Supremes?

SP CHIZ: Personally, ang posisyon ko, bilang abogado, ay ito. Nagdesisyon ang Korte Suprema. Sang-ayon ka man doon o hindi, dapat ito’y sundin. Kung hindi, magkakaron tayo ng constitutional crisis at baka tingnan tayo ng mga karatıg-bansa natin at ibang tao na isang banana republic kung saan sinusunod lamang natin ‘yung mga gusto natin.

Bilang pananaw pa sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema. Lima sa labing-isang pinag-utos ng Korte Surpema na isumite ng Kamara ay kabilang sa order o kautusan ng Senate Impeachment mismo, kaugnay sa compliance ng Kamara sa one-year ban. Sabi nga ng isang kritiko ng Senado nung mga panahong ‘yon: Wala daw karapatan ang Senado utusan ang Kamara, na tanungin ang Kamara kaugnay ng one-year ban. Sabi ng kritikong ‘yon, desisyon daw ‘yon ng Korte Suprema. Ngayong nagdesisyon naman ang Korte Suprema, ang sinasabi ng parehong taong iyan ay: the Senate is the sole judge of impeachment cases, dapat ‘wag pansinin.

Ano ba yan. Talaga bang nagbabago kung anong tama at totoo ayon sa batas depende sa gusto natin? Hindi ba dapat, ano man ang gusto natin, dapat ang sundin natin ay ang batas at ang Saligang Batas. At ayon sa Konstitusyon, Korte Suprema lamang ang bukod tanging may kapangyarihan magbigay-buhay at mag-interpret ng ating Saligang Batas. May mga parte din ng desisyon na hindi ako sang-ayon, pero kung babasahin natin ng lubusan, kabilang yung mga separate opinions …

Nakasaad din sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema: hindi nagkaroon, mula’t-mula, ng jurisdiction ang Senado doon sa impeachment complaints dahil sa paglabag sa Bill of Rights, partikular, due process of law.

… kaugnay sa paglabag sa due process kinlaro din nila yon. Na kapag violation ng due process ang pinaguusapan, ay wala na tayong puwede i-review o ibalik pa dahil nawalan na ng jurisdiction mula sa simula ang anumang korte o husgado, ayon sa majority at unanimous decision. https://www.youtube.com/

Violation of due process nga ba?

J. AZCUNA: The Constitution provides that NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW (Art. III, The Bill of Rights). Someone being impeached does not stand to be deprived of life, nor of liberty, much less of property. So what is the Constitutional basis for insisting on applying due process rules IN ALL PHASES OF IMPEACHMENT?

None.

***

Is the Supreme Court facing a perfect storm? by Joel Ruiz Butuyan

Firestorm over impeachment authority Inquirer Editorial 

The Supreme Court betrayed the people by Tony Lopez

 

 

Second-guessing the Senate

What does it mean for the impeachment trial, now that more than a majority of senators are reportedly supporting Senate President Chiz Escudero in the 20th Senate?

As many as 16 senators have already signed a resolution expressing support for Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero to remain as Senate president in the 20th Congress, Senator JV Ejercito said Tuesday [July 8]. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/

It would seem that the 16 include the DDS senators.

Wednesday, [Senator Bato] Dela Rosa announced that the Duterte bloc, now known as Duter7, has pledged its support for Senate President Francis Escudero, who has been widely criticized for delaying the impeachment trial.

While he expressed uncertainty about the commitment of fellow Duter7 member Sen. Imee Marcos, Dela Rosa stated that the bloc is generally inclined to support Escudero’s continuation as Senate president.

Duter7 comprises Senators Dela Rosa, Marcos, Bong Go, Rodante Marcoleta, Robinhood Padilla, Camille Villar and Mark Villar. https://www.manilatimes.net/2025/07/10/

Samantala, Senator Tito Sotto‘s bid for the senate presidency is down to three supporters.

Senator Migz Zubiri said on Monday, July 7, [that he] is supporting Sotto’s bid, though he admitted they currently lack the numbers. He said the so-called “Veterans Bloc”— composed of himself, Sotto, and senators Loren Legarda and Ping Lacson — is also backing Sotto. https://www.rappler.com/

16 for Chiz and 4 for Sotto makes 20. Which leaves Senators Risa Hontiveros, Bam Aquino, and Kiko Pangilinan.

Senators Bam Aquino and Francis Pangilinan are likely to join the Senate majority in the 20th Congress, with expectations that they will chair the committees on education and on agriculture, respectively, Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada said yesterday.  https://www.philstar.com/

Senator Migz Zubiri said on Monday, July 7, that opposition Senator Risa Hontiveros would be “most welcome” to join the Senate minority bloc of the 20th Congress if her allies, Senators Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan, ultimately decide to join the majority. https://www.rappler.com/

Sa tingin nila, nag-iisa na si Senator Risa.

MIGZ. I really feel sorry for Senator Risa. You know, she was always campaigning for her candidates. Then she said she would form her own independent bloc, but now she’s all alone. That’s what I heard, she’s now all alone. I cannot confirm or deny this. https://www.rappler.com/

So far neither Bam nor Kiko has confirmed or denied any of it, which tends to give credence to reports na pinagiisipan pa nila. Of course, the pinklawan Akbayan punditz are very upset. Is this any way to treat the lady, abandoning her, after she had campaigned for them, begged voters to vote for them, para may kasama, kakampi, siya sa senado?

Hmmm. I’m not sure the surprise spectacular showing of Bam and Kiko — #2 and #5 — was thanks mainly to Risa’s Akbayan pull. There was the INC, too, for Bam, and the Liberal Party for KiBam, and let’s not forget the Kiko-Shawie show-up at a Palace event celebrating Philippine cinema. I mean, you know, huwag naman angkinin sina Bam at Kiko.

Besides, I’m not (yet) convinced that a supermajority for Chiz as SP means a supermajority for dismissal of the impeachment complaint. I wouldn’t put it past Chiz to dangle committee chairmanships in exchange for the SP post but without compromising the impeachment.

Dela Rosa, who failed to get the impeachment case dismissed during the 19th Congress, said he plans to bring up the question of jurisdiction in the plenary after the 20th Congress opens on July 28. https://www.manilatimes.net/

I imagine that Chiz will allow Bato to try again, and that, after some debate, the question will  be decided by a majority vote based, I pray, not on fears of this or that consequence but, purely on the Senate’s constitutional mandate to hold certain very powerful public officials to the highest standards of accountability and integrity.

And yes, kahit matuloy ang trial, senators could block the opening of the Dutertes’ bank accounts, kung meron nga, but that’s par for the course. Whichever way it goes, much will be revealed, and we will all be the better (informed) for it.

As for Senator Risa, in her place I wouldn’t mind being the lone wolf, not if | when I have friends in the majority.

19th Senate — “extreme cowardice” or “misplaced mercy”?

YEN MAKABENTA: With its refusal to do its constitutional duty to try Vice President Sara Dutere on an impeachment complaint filed against her by the House of Representatives, the Senate and its leadership have shown extreme cowardice in refusing to convene as an impeachment court and try the case.

This is institutional cowardice that should be rewarded accordingly. The nation should now study how it can sensibly fairly respond to this defiance of a constitutional mandate.

I don’t always agree with Makabenta and I’m not sure a constitutional amendment is the answer just because that would take, like, forever, but I have long wondered if the 18 senators who voted to remand the Articles of Impeachment are really just super wary, even scared, of displeasing the Dutertes who, according to the ICC Prosecution, still wield considerable influence especially in Davao.

Prosecution’s response to ‘Urgent Request for Interim Release’

16. In his capacity as the former President of the Philippines, Mr Duterte held the highest political office in the country for a period of six years. As a result of this position, Mr Duterte has maintained a network of support from powerful individuals within the Philippines. Further, many of Mr Duterte’s associates—including his family members—remain in positions of power with access to powerful domestic networks. This includes his daughter, Sara Duterte, who is Vice President of the Philippines and has made her position clear that she views her father’s detention at the Court as illegitimate. Further, in his filing before the Philippines Supreme Court, Mr Duterte’s counsel highlighted his current strong influence over the police in his home town of Davao – the same police department that the Prosecution alleges was involved in murders at his direction during the mayoral period.

23. Further, if released, Mr Duterte would have greater access to his associates and family who remain in positions of power with access to networks and personnel to carry out witness interference. As noted above, his daughter, Sara Duterte, is Vice President of the Philippines and a reserve colonel in the Army with strong links to the police and military. In these positions, she wields power and influence over governmental structures, as well as over her father’s former allies and supporters. Mr Duterte’s son, Sebastian Duterte, was the Mayor of Davao City. Following Mr Duterte’s election as Mayor, he now serves as Vice Mayor of Davao City. Under the relevant legislation, as Vice-Mayor, he performs the duties of the Mayor in the event of the absence of the Mayor and has the same powers and duties as the Mayor. Sebastian Duterte therefore maintains operational control under relevant domestic legislation for all police officers in Davao City.

And then again, could it also be a case of “misplaced mercy”, as in, nakakaáwà naman kasi sila, nakakulong na nga ang matanda, ii-impeach pa ang anak? Ito ang sumagi sa isip ko nang sabihin ni SP Chiz a few days ago that dismissal by a simple majority is still a possibility (or something like that) at ng isang senador, si  Alan “Remand” Peter yata yon, that the Supremes would then have to rule on the matter and if they take too long, well, then, there’s always next year. Ganoon.

Ang balita naman ni Ronald Llamas, Akbayan propagandist-cum-politicalheckler, on Chris Tan‘s Filipino.com chikahan kahapon, nagtawág daw si SP Chiz ng meeting ng mga senador bukas, a Sunday, “the day before June 30 kung saan hindi na sila 19th congress, biglang sinet.” Anong layunin, indeed. To dismiss the case?

Nagtataka lang ako na walang ibang media na nagbabalita ng miting na iyan. Did I hear wrong? If not, saan kaya napulot ni Llamas ang balita? Sinong nagbulong sa kanya? Credible ba? Imbitado ba lahat ng senador? Aling mga senador? 19th Senate ba, o 20th Senate na? Why is no one asking? Sa totoo lang.

Juan Ponce Enrile: impeachment “impasse”

I had wondered how Juan Ponce Enrile, who performed impressively as Presiding Judge circa Corona in 2012, would have handled the Senator brats of the 19th Senate who succeeded in remanding the impeachment complaint to the House, were allowed privilege speeches to defend the VP, took their oaths “with reservations”, even refused to don their robes, as well as the rest of the 18 who supported them shamelessly. Now we know that JPE wouldn’t have allowed any of it. Thanks to Inquirer.net for this interview where he talks about the impeachment and the Senate’s role. I chanced upon it on YouTube and bothered to transcribe most of it, for the record. Not bad for a centenarian. And good to know that he acknowledges and agrees with the People’s dismay and agitation over the Senate’s rule-bending ways. 

Q. Sir, you have presided over impeachment trials in the past. Do you agree with the way the Senate Impeachment Court is handling the case of Vice President Sara Duterte…

A. I do not know whether they’ve changed the rules but the Constitution is very clear. You must forthwith try and decide… Of course, when you say try, you must hear the evidence, and then decide to acquit or to convict. And the conviction [is not to punish]… the punishment is removal and disqualification to hold public office, but not jail.

I don’t know whether they have changed the rules. We never had the experience or precedent like what they have done now to return the impeachment complaint to the impeaching authority which is the House of Representatives. To me that is not done because the Senate is the co-equal body of the House. The House cannot perform its job without the performance of the Senate, and in the same way the Senate cannot do anything that is valid until the House also performs its function. There is a symbiosis between them.

Q. Would you say that that move to return the impeachment (complaint) is unconstitutional?

A. I think there is a misunderstanding along the way. I do not know why they have to tarry. You know, once an impeachment is filed with the Senate we have no other choice except to hear it, to try it, and decide it. And it will not lapse. Once it is within the jurisdiction of the Senate, it has to discharge its duty to judge the case. It’s sui generis.

Q. Why do you think there are these kinds of moves to return the impeachment case back to the House….

A. Well, frankly I think there is a semblance … that Sara does not want to face an impeachment trial. That is my opinion.

Q. But that’s from the perspective of VP Sara. How about the senator judges, they have a duty to perform, right?

A. The trouble with that is that the Congress of the Philippines will put the Constitution on a very peculiar situation. They are now locked into an impasse. Now, who can unravel that? Either you go to the Supreme Court if there’s a case, and get an interpretation.  But to me there is no need because we have the precedents of Erap and Corona’s impeachments. And the resolution of Senator Bato, with due respect to him, is unparliamentary. You cannot dismiss, you cannot move to dismiss, a case. You cannot even do that in a bill coming from the house changing the name of a street or a cat or whatever. More so, in an impeachment case. An impeachment case is not an accountability to the senators. It’s not an accountability to any impeachable officer. It is not an accountability to the government. It is an accountability to the sovereign people of this country, from whom all powers of the government, including all powers of the senators, emanate.

Q. Should Senator Bato recuse himself or inhibit himself from the trial?

A. A senator who shows his bias and partiality I think can be censured, even, by this chamber, if they want to censure him. … This is the first time that a senator had the temerity to ask for the dismissal of an impeachment case. I’m not sure of the answer to that question.

Q. What goes through your mind when you see these senators introducing new rules that you mentioned are not in the Constitution?

A. Well it goes without saying that they are not familiar with the Constitution… and second, that they do not know the meaning of their role as jurors in an impeachment trial. They’re not there to legislate. … They are there as juries, as judges, to listen to the evidence and to form a conclusion in their mind regarding the weight and gravity of the evidence presented against the respondent. …

Q. The question now is how do we get the impeachment back on track? How do we fix this?

A. Well, let it continue. Did the House accept the remanding of the impeachment case?

Q. They have not….

A. That is the dilemma … but my opinion is that it continues. Now you see the only institution of the government that has members that remain during an election in this country is the Senate. Under the 1935 constitution that was also true but the number was reduced by the 1987 constitution and I do not know why. The purpose of the two-thirds number under the 1935 constitution … is that there must be an institution, just like in the United States, that remains all the time to make a decision in case something happens to the president and the vice president or the House, so that we will not collapse… as a country. Two thirds is more than a quorum of the Senate. That was its purpose. I do not know why they removed the two-thirds and made it one-half. Nothing can function without a quorum. And in case of war, or something happens like this, we are a country without a government. It’s a very dangerous situation. I think we have to change the Constitution and restore the old two-thirds of the Senate that was written in the 1935 Constitution.

You know, what is happening in the Senate, with this event, I’m afraid that the people might be prepared to revamp the structure of  government and abolish the senate. Because it has become…. It has been disturbed very much by what has happened.

Q. Someone said that some senator judges are acting like lawyers for the VP. Do you share that opinion?

A. The rule of impartiality is a hallmark of the role of every senator in an impeachment trial. That is why impeachment of an impeachable officer, and there are only a very few of them, is separated from Article VI of the Constitution. It was treated in Article IX because that is the article that governs accountability of high government officials wielding high powers of government. Who are the impeachable officers? The President, the Vice President, members of the Supreme Court, members of Constitutional Commissions, including the Ombudsman. Those are the only impeachable positions. The president cannot do anything because he is also an impeachable officer. He has a conflict of interest if he will intervene, apart from the separation of powers. The president is locked out from the fray.

Q. How do we go beyond partisan politics and make it about accountability?

A. The only two ways that I can see would be for the Supreme Court to make an interpretation which will become a part of our jurisprudence and in turn become a part of the law of the land to define and clarify that portion of the Constitution. The second one is, amend the Constitution… there’s no other way.

Some people might think that this is a very light problem for the country. No sir. We are in a very dangerous situation right now because if there is an impasse the Senate cannot command the House to do anything. They are co-equal. Neither can the House command the Senate to do anything. The House did its function — they conducted hearings, they found something wrong, you may not agree with them but they found that, and they submitted it to the Senate for resolution. The Senate is supposed to do its job with reasonable speed or, as the Constitution says, forthwith, anybody can understand that English, and they did not do it, they tarried and dillydallied and worse they turned it back to the House… which is improper and unparliamentary…. You must give a presumption of regularity to the other house. You cannot demand or command the other house which is your co-equal.

Q. With all the moves that we are seeing from the senator judges, do you think it’s just because they have no numbers to convict the vice president?

A. I do not know whether there are no numbers to convict or acquit the vice president but in an impeachment trial…  I give you myself as an example. I was going to vote for Corona but I changed my mind when I heard the evidence coming from his own mouth. How do you know that those people who will hear the evidence will not change their minds? Because if they’re going to act in a way where the public feels that they’re not performing their jobs they’re subject to punishment through election. If they’re not going to run again, maybe, but they’re politicians, they cater to the desires … of the voting population

Q. Kumbaga, the people will remember.

A. Im sure. I’m sure some people will get hurt with what happened.

Q. I want to go back to the impeachment trial of President Estrada . Do you see any similarities between the trial of President Estrada and the trial of Vice President Duterte given that they are both from the executive branch?

A. In the case of the first impeachment that happened, I don’t think that anyone can say that we delayed. As I told you the process that we followed was, when the impeachment was received by the secretary general of the senate, that official sent it to the committee on rules, the committee on rules immediately, the following session day he puts it in the order of business for first reading, and the plenary will send it to the proper committee for processing immediately, and we did that in the case of Erap, and the head of the committee that handled it was Renato Cayetano, and we prepared the rules of impeachment, how the senator judges will comport themselves, how time is allotted to each clarificatory question, and that there must be no debate. You cannot debate with the witness, you cannot debate with each other .

Q. If you have a chance to have a conversation with the sitting senator judges, what would you tell them?

A.  With due respect to them my (first advice) is to be reticent, keep quiet. … Go to the session hall during the trial, sit down and listen to the proceeding, listen to the presentation of evidence. Let the defense lawyer and the prosecution handle each other but never interfere unless you want to ask a clarificatory question. Understand the meaning of the evidence that is being presented or the words uttered by the witness.

Q. How about the Filipino people.  What would be their role in this impeachment trial?

A. Im sure the Filipino people who have a little understanding of  these things will wonder why things are happening this way. Im sorry to say this but even I was a little bit taken (aback) with the events that transpired because (it was) very evident that there is a desire to prevent the trial to go through.

Kailangan maintindihan ng ating bayan na kung itong proseso  ng impeachment na nangyayari ngayon ay masusunod, wala nang sasangga sa corruption sa buong bansa. Ibigay na lang natin yung pera … ng mga nagbabayad ng buwis … sa gobyerno, at bahala na sila. Hindi na pupunta sa mga tao. Libre na eh. Wala nang magbabawal sa kanila. Wala na silang barrier o yung sasangga sa nakawan ng kaban ng bayan. Nalulungkot ako dahil karamihan nitong mga nasa senado ngayon , marami sa kanila mga kaibigan ko. Pero yung mga bago, dapat mag-aral naman sila sana, at malaman nila kung ano talaga ang ibig sabihin nitong trabaho na pumasok sa kanila na dapat nilang sundin.