Escudero, Sotto trade barbs over Cha-cha talks
In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Escudero questioned why Sotto would be supportive of a Charter change, which the Senate president said is being pushed by the House of Representatives led by Speaker Martin Romualdez.
'Easy lang po…kinampihan na nga po ninyo ang impeachment ng HOR at ni Speaker Martin maski sabi ng SC [na] unconstitutional, ngayon naman po kinakampihan na din niyo ang ChaCha ng HOR at ni Speaker Romualdez!?' Escudero asked.
(Take it easy. You already supported the impeachment pushed by the House and Speaker Martin even if the SC said it was unconstitutional. Now, you also want to support the Cha-cha pushed by the HOR and Speaker Romualdez?!)
Escudero ended his post with a hashtag 'the Senate is not your playground,' reiterating his statement when he voted in favor of archiving the articles of impeachment against Duterte that the Senate is not the playground of House members to run after their political enemies.
Sotto, in response, explained that he would only be supportive of Cha-cha if the SC would maintain its decision to junk the impeachment case against Duterte despite the motions of reconsideration filed with the high court.
'What I said was, if the SC ruling stands as is and the Constitution is amended by merely [an] SC decision, then I will consider supporting a [Constituent] Assembly or a Constitutional Convention to rewrite Article XI of the Constitution because the requirements written in the SC decision is impossible to meet,' Sotto told reporters.
'Wala akong kinakampihan tulad nila. Ang kinakampihan ko ay ang Constitution,' he added.
(I am not in favor of anybody unlike them. I am siding with the Constitution.)
Article XI Section 3(4) of the 1987 Constitution 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.'
When the SC released its decision on the impeachment case, it said that the articles of impeachment are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution.
The high court also found that the articles violated Duterte's right to due process.
The SC, however, emphasized that it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026.
The House of Representatives, through the Office of the Solicitor General, earlier filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking to reverse the SC decision. The House argued that it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate to try the case.
Other motions for reconsideration have also been filed with the SC against its ruling.
Last Wednesday, the Senate voted 19-4-1 to transfer to the archives the articles of impeachment against Duterte, following the decision of the SC to declare her impeachment unconstitutional. — RSJ, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
4 hours ago
- GMA Network
Senate's proposed 2026 budget slashed by nearly half at P7.5 billion
The Senate has a proposed budget of P7.5 billion for next year under the National Expenditure Program (NEP)—a far cry from its P13.9-billion budget for 2025. Based on the 2026 NEP submitted by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), the upper chamber initially proposed a P9.67-billion budget for 2025, but it was reduced to P7.52 billion upon final recommendation. The Senate received a P13.93-billion budget under the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA). The upper chamber's proposed 2026 budget was almost equally divided for its maintenance and other operating expenses (MOOE) and personnel services, amounting to P3.77 billion and P3.74 billion, respectively. No budget was allocated for the Senate's confidential, intelligence, and extraordinary expenses as in previous years. There was also zero allocation for its capital outlays on the 2026 NEP. The DBM on Wednesday afternoon turned over the copy of the P6.793-trillion 2026 NEP to the Senate, which was personally received by Senate President Francis "Chiz" Escudero. On the same day, the Senate adopted in the plenary Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 4, subject to style, which seeks to establish transparency and accountability in the passage of the national budget. The concurrent resolution mandates that budget documents such as the General Appropriations Bill (GAB), Bicameral Conference Committee Report, and transcripts of bicam meetings be uploaded on both the websites of the Senate and the House of Representatives. It also provides that both Houses of Congress ensure that all budget deliberations, including budget briefings, public hearings, plenary discussions, and bicameral conference committee meetings be accessible to the public via digital live streaming. The public will likewise be given a platform on the websites to communicate their analyses, suggestions, and feedback on the national budget. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
7 hours ago
- GMA Network
SC upholds Senate subpoena vs. Alice Guo
The Supreme Court (SC) announced Friday that it upheld the subpoena issued by a Senate committee requiring dismissed Bamban, Tarlac Mayor Alice Guo to testify. Last year, the Senate Committee on Women, Children, Family Relations, and Gender Equality conducted an inquiry into the alleged illegal Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator (POGO) activities in Bamban and required Gou's presence. In July 2024, Guo asked the SC to annul and set aside the subpoena. The last Senate hearing was held in November 2024. In a statement, the SC said the committee hearings followed the 1987 Constitution and the Senate Rules of Procedure. The SC said that Guo's rights were not violated and the inquiry was a legitimate exercise of legislative power to protect public interest and uphold the law. It cited Article VI, Section 21 of the Constitution, which states that the Senate and its committees can conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, provided that the established rules are followed and the rights of persons involved are respected. 'The SC found that the Committee's investigation into illegal POGO operations in Bamban, Tarlac was within its authority. The questions asked about Guo's identity, family, relationships, assets, and businesses were relevant and necessary to the inquiry,' it said in a statement. Further, the SC said that Guo was invited as a resource person and not an accused. 'On privacy concerns, the SC noted that public officials have a limited expectation of privacy when their actions involve official functions or matters of national interest,' it said. 'Documents such as Guo's birth certificate, SALNs, and business records were essential to the investigation and thus lawfully disclosed, even under the Data Privacy Act of 2012,' it added. Contempt Meanwhile, the SC affirmed that citing individuals for contempt is a part of the Senate's legislative powers. Guo is facing a qualified trafficking case before a Pasig court, a graft case before a Valenzuela court, and a material misrepresentation case before a Tarlac court. A quo warranto petition was also filed against Guo with a Manila court, as well as a petition to cancel her birth certificate before a Tarlac court. — RSJ, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
8 hours ago
- GMA Network
Makati Business Club, MAP join call for SC to reverse ruling on Sara's impeachment
The country's most influential business organizations, Makati Business Club (MBC) and Management Association of the Philippines (MAP), have joined legal and judicial advocates in calling on the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the House of Representatives' appeal to reverse its decision declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional. 'We join a nation hopeful that the Supreme Court shall steadfastly resume its role in defending the Constitution that the Filipino people have ratified at a pivotal time in our history,' the MBC, MAP, Integrity Initiative, and Justice Reform Initiative said in a joint statement on Friday. 'We beg the Court to guard against the erosion of the constitutional design that can set aside the people's sovereign will. Our fidelity must always be to the principle that no one stands above the Constitution, and no government official is supreme over the Filipino people they are sworn to faithfully serve,' the groups said. The House has filed a motion for reconsideration asking the high court to reverse its ruling junking the impeachment case against the Vice President, saying it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate's to try the case. In its appeal before the high tribunal, the House argued that the fourth impeachment complaint, signed off by 215 House members, is the only initiated impeachment case against the Vice President because it met the Constitutional requirement of the complaint being endorsed by at least one-third of the House members, which allowed the House to transmit the Articles of Impeachment straight to the Senate en route to the impeachment trial, bypassing Committee deliberations. Voting 13-0, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, deeming that the Articles of Impeachment are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution. Moreover, the magistrates ruled that the articles violate the right to due process. The MBC, MAP, Integrity Initiative, and Justice Reform Initiative said the 'decision of the [Supreme] Court as it stands sends a dangerous signal throughout the bureaucracy that abuse of power and corruption carry no consequence.' 'If we fail to hold the highest officials of the land accountable, how can we expect accountability from those below them?' The groups argued that the appeal filed by the lower chamber 'merits reconsideration,' due to the following: 'Deemed Initiated' is not in the Constitution One-year bar not triggered Venue for due process is specific Impeachment is to protect the people The groups explained that the high court treated the first three complaints as 'deemed dismissed' triggering the one-year bar for the initiation of the next impeachment, but, in effect, 'treated the first three complaints (counted as one) as 'deemed initiated' as well.' 'For how can there be a succeeding impeachment initiation to bar if the first has not even been initiated? This deeming effect rests on no Constitutional text because whenever the charter desires that legal effect, it states so expressly, such as on: who are 'deemed natural-born citizens' (Article IV, Section 2) ; who are 'deemed to have renounced citizenship' (Article IV, Section 4); 'deemed re-enacted' budget (Article VI, Section 25[7]); 'deemed certified' special election bill (Article VII, Section 10); 'deemed submitted for decision' (Article VIII, Section 15[2]; Article IX, Section 7); 'deemed lifted' freeze order (Article XVIII, Section 26[3]),' the groups said. 'If the framers of the Constitution intended that inaction by the House shall make an impeachment 'deemed initiated,' it would have been so indicated like the rest of the provisions above stated,' they added. With this, the groups said the Supreme Court, in its decision has said that 'complaints not properly endorsed by a member of the House within a reasonable period, even if dismissed, does not trigger the one-year bar.' They said that, 'in the same breath, the Court deems inaction by the House as a dismissal that triggers the one-year bar.' 'This, we submit, stands in tension with the Court's own reasoning: in both cases, the House did not act and yet there are different legal effects.' The MBC, MAP, Integrity Initiative, and Justice Reform Initiative said, moreover, said that the 'venue for due process is specific' as 'impeachment is neither a criminal nor administrative proceeding,' adding that 'it is a sui generis process for which the Constitution provides specific venues for due process: in the Committee on Justice for the first mode of impeachment (by verified complaint endorsed by a member of the House); or at the Senate Trial for the second mode (Impeachment by direct resolution transmitted to the Senate).' 'The Senate by stopping the impeachment initiated through the second mode, and the Court by its decision in this case as it stands, unfortunately prevented due process from happening,' the groups said. The groups further said that 'impeachment is to protect the people,' citing the Article XI, 'Accountability of Public Officers', of the Constitution which provides that the impeachment process exists to serve the public and 'not to shield a government official from the rigors of defending himself or herself, but to safeguard the people's right to demand accountability from those who wield authority supposedly on their behalf.' The groups stressed that 'without accountability, the government loses trust.' The MBC, MAP, Integrity Initiative, and Justice Reform Initiative said that if the high court's ruling is 'uncorrected,' it 'will institutionalize the flaws in our rule of law.' 'The impact is not only political, it's also economic. When investor confidence retracts, when costs of doing business rise, when the supply chain struggles, invariably, it's the consumers, the people, who will pay the price. Everyone needlessly suffers - as our history as a nation repeatedly taught us,' the groups said. — BAP, GMA Integrated News
