Senate to allow evidence vs. VP Sara if impeach rap is constitutional —Alan Cayetano
The Senate impeachment court will allow the presentation of evidence against Vice President Sara Dutete on one condition: if the said court has already resolved that the impeachment complaint is constitutional.
'I can only assure the public na aabot tayo sa ebidensya if the whole impeachment court says na wala itong fatal constitutional defect that takes out jurisdiction from the court,' Senator Alan Cayetano, a lawyer, told reporters.
(The public can be assured that we will reach the presentation of evidence if the whole impeachment court says that the complaint has no constitutional defect.)
Cayetano made known his position a day after Senate President Francis Escudero said that the Senate can vote on the motion to dismiss the impeachment complaint if such motion is put forward by either a senator-judge or the camp of the Vice President.
Further, Escudero said that a motion to dismiss the impeachment complaint against the Vice President outrightly can be carried via a majority vote, just like any other motion.
'Hindi pa pwedeng ipakita mo muna lahat ng ebidensya mo kay VP Sara, saka natin tignan kung may jurisdiction o wala,' Cayetano added.
(You can't show the evidence against the Vice President and then later decide if the court has jurisdiction over the case or otherwise)
Duterte and Senator Ronald dela Rosa, who are both seeking to dismiss the impeachment complaint, argue that the complaint violates the Constitution's one-year bar rule, which only allows for the filing of one impeachment complaint against an impeachable official per year.
The House prosecution panel contends that the fourth impeachment complaint filed by over 200 members of the House against the Vice President is the lone verified impeachment complaint filed against her because the first three impeachment complaints were never forwarded by House Secretary General Reginald Velasco to the Office of Speaker and Leyte Rep. Martin Romualdez.
An impeachment complaint must be referred to the Office of Speaker for it to be scheduled for House Committee on Justice deliberation.
The fourth impeachment complaint filed last February 5, however, had more than 200 House members as endorsers or way above the Constitutional requirement of one-third of all House members for it to be directly transmitted to the Senate and for the impeachment trial to 'proceed forthwith.'
Realm of possibilities
Cayetano then said that Escudero was simply laying out possibilities and not guaranteeing dismissal of the impeachment complaint.
'Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should. We really have to take a deep breath and think what's best for the country. And that's precisely why we agreed to return the impeachment complaint to the House first,' Cayetano said.
Cayetano was referring to the motion of dela Rosa seeking to dismiss the impeachment rap against the Vice President allegedly due to being violative of the one-year bar rule.
Dela Rosa's motion put forward before the Senate impeachment court last June 11, however, was amended to returning the impeachment complaint to the House and requiring the House to submit certifications that it did not violate the one-year bar rule and that the 20th Congress, which will only start on July 28, will still pursue the impeachment case against the Vice President.
'Kung na-dismiss during that time, what would be next? Pagdating nung bagong labing dalawang senador, back to zero kami. But ngayon na ibinalik, so one, mahihimay natin yung issue that did they or did they not violate the Constitution in terms of one impeachment lang in a year,' Cayetano said.
'Secondly, obvious naman yung ano eh, pagka nag-appoint sila ng bagong prosecutor at dumating sila, interesado pa sila. Kung hindi sila dumating sa korte, hindi na sila interesado. Pero hindi mo pwedeng sabihin 'yan from the 19th Congress [na iyon rin ang gagawin ng mga] nasa 20th Congress,' Cayetano said.
(Also, if the House appoints a new set of prosecutors, then that would show that they remain interested in pursuing the impeachment case. If they don't show up, then they are not interested anymore. But we cannot assume that what the 19th Congress wants to do will be the same for the 20th Congress.)
Cayetano then said there is no need for the public to be alarmed at this point.
'Don't panic because one, there's the Supreme Court. If you have a majority who says that they (House) violated the Constitution, babagksak at babagsak 'yan Supreme Court 'yan. Secondly, what's the worst case? They can file another one after one year,' Cayetano said.
(If the Senate court finds the impeachment case unconstitutional, then it can be questioned before the Supreme Court. And what is the worst case? They would have to file another impeachment complaint after one year.) —LDF, GMA Integrated News
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
6 hours ago
- GMA Network
Senate to allow evidence vs. VP Sara if impeach rap is constitutional —Alan Cayetano
The Senate impeachment court will allow the presentation of evidence against Vice President Sara Dutete on one condition: if the said court has already resolved that the impeachment complaint is constitutional. 'I can only assure the public na aabot tayo sa ebidensya if the whole impeachment court says na wala itong fatal constitutional defect that takes out jurisdiction from the court,' Senator Alan Cayetano, a lawyer, told reporters. (The public can be assured that we will reach the presentation of evidence if the whole impeachment court says that the complaint has no constitutional defect.) Cayetano made known his position a day after Senate President Francis Escudero said that the Senate can vote on the motion to dismiss the impeachment complaint if such motion is put forward by either a senator-judge or the camp of the Vice President. Further, Escudero said that a motion to dismiss the impeachment complaint against the Vice President outrightly can be carried via a majority vote, just like any other motion. 'Hindi pa pwedeng ipakita mo muna lahat ng ebidensya mo kay VP Sara, saka natin tignan kung may jurisdiction o wala,' Cayetano added. (You can't show the evidence against the Vice President and then later decide if the court has jurisdiction over the case or otherwise) Duterte and Senator Ronald dela Rosa, who are both seeking to dismiss the impeachment complaint, argue that the complaint violates the Constitution's one-year bar rule, which only allows for the filing of one impeachment complaint against an impeachable official per year. The House prosecution panel contends that the fourth impeachment complaint filed by over 200 members of the House against the Vice President is the lone verified impeachment complaint filed against her because the first three impeachment complaints were never forwarded by House Secretary General Reginald Velasco to the Office of Speaker and Leyte Rep. Martin Romualdez. An impeachment complaint must be referred to the Office of Speaker for it to be scheduled for House Committee on Justice deliberation. The fourth impeachment complaint filed last February 5, however, had more than 200 House members as endorsers or way above the Constitutional requirement of one-third of all House members for it to be directly transmitted to the Senate and for the impeachment trial to 'proceed forthwith.' Realm of possibilities Cayetano then said that Escudero was simply laying out possibilities and not guaranteeing dismissal of the impeachment complaint. 'Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should. We really have to take a deep breath and think what's best for the country. And that's precisely why we agreed to return the impeachment complaint to the House first,' Cayetano said. Cayetano was referring to the motion of dela Rosa seeking to dismiss the impeachment rap against the Vice President allegedly due to being violative of the one-year bar rule. Dela Rosa's motion put forward before the Senate impeachment court last June 11, however, was amended to returning the impeachment complaint to the House and requiring the House to submit certifications that it did not violate the one-year bar rule and that the 20th Congress, which will only start on July 28, will still pursue the impeachment case against the Vice President. 'Kung na-dismiss during that time, what would be next? Pagdating nung bagong labing dalawang senador, back to zero kami. But ngayon na ibinalik, so one, mahihimay natin yung issue that did they or did they not violate the Constitution in terms of one impeachment lang in a year,' Cayetano said. 'Secondly, obvious naman yung ano eh, pagka nag-appoint sila ng bagong prosecutor at dumating sila, interesado pa sila. Kung hindi sila dumating sa korte, hindi na sila interesado. Pero hindi mo pwedeng sabihin 'yan from the 19th Congress [na iyon rin ang gagawin ng mga] nasa 20th Congress,' Cayetano said. (Also, if the House appoints a new set of prosecutors, then that would show that they remain interested in pursuing the impeachment case. If they don't show up, then they are not interested anymore. But we cannot assume that what the 19th Congress wants to do will be the same for the 20th Congress.) Cayetano then said there is no need for the public to be alarmed at this point. 'Don't panic because one, there's the Supreme Court. If you have a majority who says that they (House) violated the Constitution, babagksak at babagsak 'yan Supreme Court 'yan. Secondly, what's the worst case? They can file another one after one year,' Cayetano said. (If the Senate court finds the impeachment case unconstitutional, then it can be questioned before the Supreme Court. And what is the worst case? They would have to file another impeachment complaint after one year.) —LDF, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
9 hours ago
- GMA Network
Dismissal of impeachment raps vs. Sara without hearing evidence a disservice, solons say
'At the end of the day, ano ba yung basis ng motion to dismiss? Each Senator should act as an impartial judge, whether or not they are in favor of the accused or not," Manila Rep. Ernix Dionesio said. The Senate impeachment court dismissing the complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte without hearing the evidence is a disservice to the Filipino people and a clear partiality, House members said on Thursday. Senate President Francis Escudero said the day before that the impeachment court may vote to dismiss the impeachment complaint against the Vice President outright by a majority vote in the event such motion is put forward, given that there is no motion that is prohibited. 'At the end of the day, ano ba yung basis ng motion to dismiss? Each Senator should act as an impartial judge, whether or not they are in favor of the accused or not," Manila Rep. Ernix Dionesio said. "Doon mo makikita na may pinapanigan agad kapag nagmo-motion to dismiss without hearing a piece or pieces of evidence. Wala pang pinipresentan, gusto na nalang i-dismiss,' he added. (What is the basis of motion to dismiss to begin with? If a Senator-judge will make a motion to dismiss without hearing the pieces of evidence, then that Senator-judge is clearly partial because he or she wants a dismissal without hearing the evidence.) 'The people are watching, history will write itself now. We don't want to overstep, but it is our opinion that the impeachment is the best way to see whether or not guilty or not guilty after [the Senator-judges] seeing the pieces of evidence,' Dionesio added. Lanao Del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said senator-judges should base their decision whether to convict or acquit an impeachable official on the merits of the complaint rather than dismissing it outright. 'I still maintain my optimism that they will decide based on the merits of the evidence. There are senators who have already prejudged the outcome or already have their own leanings, their own biases," Adiong said. "Wala naman problema if they vote for either to convict or to acquit. Basta ang position lang po namin is to respect what the Constitution says and let the impeachment process proceed,' he added. (If the motion to dismiss will be put is no problem if a Senator-judge want to acquit or convict. But our position that we should respect what the Constitution says remains.) The impeachment complaint filed by over 200 lawmakers back in February 5 accuses the Vice President of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes mainly over alleged misuse of around P612.5 million worth of confidential funds and threatening to kill President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., his wife Liza and the President's cousin and Speaker Martin Romualdez of Leyte. 'It's not the question of can they do it? It's the question of why should they do it?" Adiong said as regards the impeachment court dismissing the complaint without hearing the evidence. "There is a verified impeachment na complaint... allegations that constitutes high crimes, tantamount to betrayal of public trust, among others, laid down in the public deserves to know the truth," Adiong said. The full-blown presentation of evidence in an impeachment trial, Adiong said, will also serve justice to the Vice President. 'The only way for us to find out the truth and at the same time give due process to the defendant is to continue with the impeachment trial,' Adiong said. –NB, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
11 hours ago
- GMA Network
House prosecutor: Senate can't vote to dismiss VP Sara impeach case
Vice President Sara Duterte attends a legislative inquiry into her office's use of public funds at the House of Representatives in Quezon City, Philippines on November 25, 2024. REUTERS/Eloisa Lopez An impeachment prosecutor of the House of Representatives on Thursday disagreed with the position of Senate President Francis "Chiz" Escudero that senator-judges can vote to dismiss the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte. Representative Gerville Luistro of Batangas' second district expressed her view after Escudero on Wednesday said the Senate impeachment court may vote on a motion to dismiss the articles should a member of the impeachment court make such a submission. "The Impeachment Court cannot dismiss the Articles of Impeachment," Luistro told GMA Integrated News. "The Constitution is clear. The power/function of the Impeachment Court is to try and to decide. Let us take note of the use of the word 'and,'" Luistro added. She also said both the prosecution and the defense panels must be given an opportunity to present their evidence. "Trial on the merits is mandatory. Ample opportunity to present evidence must be given both to the prosecution and the defense. Then and only then can the senator-judges decide whether to convict or to acquit," Luistro said. Senator Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa had moved in the plenary for the dismissal of the Articles of Impeachment, but his motion was eventually amended that the complaint be returned to the House of Representatives pending a couple of certifications. Speaking at a press conference regarding the matter, Escudero said there is no prohibited motion and that senators cannot be stopped from making such a motion. As a collegial body, Escudero said, objections to motions are put to a vote. "Always by simple majority. Ang hindi lamang required ng simple majority [kasi] two-thirds ang kailangan kapag magbobotohan, iyong to, acquit or convict [an impeachable official under trial]," Escudero said. (The only case when a simple majority is not required is on deciding whether to convict or acquit the impeachable official, which requires two-thirds.) What the Charter provides Asked if there was any legal or constitutional basis for Escudero's statement, Luistro replied, "When the Constitution does not provide, we should not provide." For her part, ML Party-list Representative-elect Leila de Lima lashed out at Escudero's view on the issue. "May Chiz Escudero version na talaga ang 1987 Constitution. Ibang-iba sa original," De Lima said in an online post. (There's really a Chiz Escudero version of the 1987 Constitution. Totally different from the original.) De Lima is expected to join the House prosecution panel in the 20th Congress. 'Disservice' to Filipinos Meanwhile, House leaders said dismissing the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte without the presentation of evidence would be a disservice to the Filipino people by the Senate impeachment court. House Assistant Majority Leaders Ernesto "Ernix" Dionisio of Manila and Zia Adiong of Lanao del Sur made the assertion in response to Escudero's statement in a press conference on Thursday. "At the end of the day, ano ba 'yung basis ng motion to dismiss? Each senator should act as an impartial judge, whether or not they are in favor of the accused or not. Doon mo makikita na may pinapanigan agad kapag nagmo-motion to dismiss without hearing a piece or pieces of evidence. Wala pang pinipresentan, gusto na nilang i-dismiss," Dionisio said. (What is the basis of motion to dismiss to begin with? If a Senator-judge will make a motion to dismiss without hearing the pieces of evidence, then that senator-judge is clearly partial because he or she wants a dismissal without hearing the evidence.) "The people are watching, history will write itself now. We don't want to overstep, but it is our opinion that the impeachment is the best way to see whether or not guilty or not guilty after seeing the pieces of evidence," Dionisio added. Respect the Constitution On the other hand, Adiong said senator-judges should base their decision whether to convict or acquit an impeachable official on the merits of the complaint rather than dismissing it outright. "Kung may mga motion to dismiss, ang mga senator-judges, ako... I still maintain my optimism that they will decide based on the merits of the evidence. There are senators who have already prejudged the outcome or already have their own leanings, their own biases. [At] wala naman problema if they vote for either to convict or to acquit. Basta ang position lang po namin is to respect what the Constitution says and let the impeachment process proceed," Adiong said. (If the motion to dismiss will be put forward... there is no problem if a senator-judge wants to acquit or convict. However, we stand by our position that what the Constitution should be respected and let the impeachment process proceed.) Adiong was referring to Article XI Section 3.4 of the 1987 Constitution, which states that "in case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed." The impeachment complaint endorsed by over 200 lawmakers on February 5 accuses the Vice President of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes involving the alleged misuse of P612.5 million worth of confidential funds and threatening to kill President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr., his wife Liza, and his cousin Speaker Martin Romualdez. A question of why With regard to the question of senator-judges dismissing the impeachment case outright, Adiong said, "It's not the question of can they do it? It's the question of why should they do it?" "There is a verified impeachment na complaint ang pinag-uusapan rito ay pera ng taong bayan (There is a verified impeachment complaint involving state funds), allegations that constitute high crimes, tantamount to betrayal of public trust, among others, laid down in the Constitution... The public deserves to know the truth, the public deserves to know kung saan napuntaha 'yung kanilang pera (The public deserves to know the truth, the public deserves to know where their money went)," Adiong added. The full presentation of evidence in an impeachment trial, Adiong said, will also allow justice to be served to the Vice President. "The only way for us to find out the truth and at the same time give due process to the defendant is to continue with the impeachment trial," Adiong said. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
