Majority floor leader. Yes, Mr. President. Mr.

President, at this juncture, the

distinguished gentleman from the great province of Tarlac and Rizal, Senator
Rodante Marcoleta, is seeking the floor to deliver his privileged speech. I move
that he be recognized. Mr. President, Senator Marcoa is recognized to deliver um
his privileged speech. You may proceed, sir. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr.
President, I rise on a question of privilege. Today, I believe the entire nation
awaits the disposition of the matter
in regard to the impeachment complaint filed against the vice president Sarah
Simmerman Duterte. In the light of the recent but unanimous decision of the Supreme
Court, Mr. President, this decision was promulgated on July 25, 2025, declaring
said complaint to be unconstitutional, void of initial, violative of due process,
and that the Senate in the first place did not acquire jurisdiction over it. Take
note, Mr. president. It even said that the decision is immediately executive. But
before I continue, Mr. President,
let me put on record that the initial proceedings, impeachment proceedings
conducted by the Senate in the 19th Congress have never been formally carried over
to the Senate of the 28th Congress. I do not know and I'm not aware I cannot recall
of any action so far taken by this a ghost chamber to the effect that the initial
impeachment proceedings which were deemed to have been terminated at the expiration
of the 19th Congress at noon of June 30, 2025 have been miraculously brought
brought to life into the present
Congress. That having said, Mr. President, I'd like to continue. Mr. President, the
decision of the Supreme Court did not dwell on the intrinsic merits of the
impeachment complaint filed against the vice president. It zero in merely on the
procedures and the processes taken by the House of Representatives. To repeat, it
declared the whole impeachment complaint constituting the articles of impeachment
to be unconstitutional, violative of due process void of initial simply because the
rules of procedure and impeachment
proceedings in the House of Representatives were never followed and they violated
the one-year ban on multiple impeachment complaints as prescribed under article 11
section 3 paragraph 5 which says that no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated
against the same official more than twice within a period of one year Mr.
President, no impeachment proceeding should be initiated against the same person
more than twice within a period of one year. Impeachment proceedings, impeachment
complaints, House of Representatives.
The first one started in December 2, December 4, December 19 complaint which was
signed by more than onethird of the members of the House of Representatives. House
of Representatives Supreme Court. Mr. President, House of Representatives, in
connection with the two petitions filed by several parties before the Supreme
Court. One of the items required by the Supreme Court is for the House to give the
status of the first three complaints filed. House of Representatives. The one filed
in December 2, December 4,
and December 19. We're all archived. Impeachment complaints. Impeachment complaint
rule two rule two Mr. President and this rule three. Rule three. Rule two, section
three. A verified complaint for impeachment by a member of the house or by any
citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any member thereof shall be filed with
the office of the secretary general and immediately referred to the speaker
impeachment complaint dated December 2, 2024. Office of the Secretary General
Impeachment Complaint on December 4.
Office of the Secretary General impeachment complaint that was received on December
19. Solicitor General in behalf of the House of Representatives The Secretary
General diligently referred simultaneously all the impeachment complaints to the
office of the speaker on February 5, 2025. Immediately, Mr. speaker December 2,
December 4, December 19, February 5. All of them were simultaneously referred to
the office of the speaker on February 5 of the speaker. Solicitor General, the four
impeachment complaints
were included in the order of business session number 36. You will note, Mr.
Speaker, annex order of business in section number 36. Journal number 36.
Impeachment complaints were included in the order of business. Mr. President, I
have a copy of the order of business session number 36. And I will deposit a copy
to the office of the Senate Secretary for everyone to see and examine for
themselves. include order of business order of business journal Mr. Speaker as
additional reference of business that
is not the requirement of the constitution A verified complaint for impeachment may
be filed by the member of the house. Blah blah blah. Sorry po includes 10th session
section number 36ations committee once session 36 is the 10th session. December
two, that was the date when the first complaint was filed, endorsed and received by
the office of the secretary general. December two is session number 26. Mr.
President session number 26 up to session 36 general 11th session that was not the
10th session and 11th session is session
number 35 just for the record Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker mode of initiating
impeachment rule of the House of Representatives. Impeachment shall be initiated by
the filing and subsequent referral to the Committee of Justice. Sereno versus oh
I'm sorry Francisco versus House of Representatives. Verified complaint for
impeachment filed by any member of the House of Representatives. po committee on
justice. Verified complaint filed by any citizen upon a resolution endorsement by
any member thereof po committee on justice. A
verified complaint or resolution impeachment filed by at least onethird of all
members of the house committee on justice. Senate Mr. Speaker endorsement of the
complaint resolution to the Senate. Mr. President, endorse impeachment complaint
that was signed by one or even more members of the House of Representatives.
Committee once they never did, Mr. Speaker, Mr. president. So violations, you
cannot use section 14 in isolation in isolation of section two discretion, Mr.
President was the House given the discret the discretion to
select to withhold and select from among the four impeachment complaints which will
be the the one to be transmitted in the Senate in derrogation of the one-year ban
rule discretion. Supreme Court. Even the 10th session day, 11th session order of
business, they never included them in the order of business. Mr. President, last
page impeachment complaint. Mr. President subscribed and verified before me.
Secretary General subscribe and verified before me on this blank day of February
2025. Mr. Presidentification
House of Representatives. Section 3, paragraph 2. An impeachment complaint is
verified by an affidavit that the complainant has read the complaint and that the
allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on
authentic records. At the very least, Secretary General House of Representatives 32
pages. This is not the verification required under the rules of impeachment by the
House of Representatives. Section 14. Mr. Presidentification. We after having after
being sworn in
accordance with law, depose an estate that we are the complainants in the above
entitled complaint or resolution of impeachment. That we have caused the said
complaint resolution to be prepared and have read the contents thereof. and that
the allegations therein are true of our own knowledge and belief on the basis of
our own reading and appreciation of documents and other records pertinent there
too. Mr. President, Mr. President region 1963 Mr. President Mr. President
Litigation lawyers, practicing lawyers worth their soul.
Certification of nonporum. This is an impeachment complaint. You are removing the
second highest official of government. Section 3, paragraph 3. An impeachment
complaint required to be verified which contains a verification based on
information or belief or upon knowledge or information and belief or lacks proper
verification shall be treated as an unsigned impeachment complaint. It may be
treated as signed impeachment complaint. Mr. President, complaint of
representatives. Hello. Hello. Mr. President,
Mr. President Presidentives, Secretary of Justice, Human Rights Commission. for
impeachment case. At least maybe [Music] Billy Mr. President, You want to impeach
the vice president, do it in the right way. Impeachment complaint. Mr. President,
Mr. President, Official statement of the integrated bar of the Philippines and the
Supreme Court's decision into 30 versus House of Representatives August 1, 2025,
and I quote, "is agreement with the court's reasoning is neither unwelcome nor
unexpected.
Descent is not foreign to a democracy. It is essential to its survival. But to
incite public repudiation of its authority or even just to call for its outright
defiance erodess the very foundation of the legal order. Such actions disturb the
equilibrium of powers and imperil the integrity of our democratic institutions
especially when appropriate legal remedies remain available within the framework of
our constitutional system. First ruling becomes an invitation to disobey, the law
ceases to be a
constraint on power and becomes its casualty. The constitution does not require
agreement. It demands adherence. Motion for reconsideration. As I said, Mr.
President, if you are a practicing lawyer worth your salt, you are confronted with
a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court. In a film voice it says this is
unconstitutional, void of initial, violative of due process and the Senate never
acquired jurisdiction over this and it is immediately executing that even one soul
of the members of the
Supreme Court will reverse himself. We cannot defend our action Mr. president on
the fortunes of litigation. Francisco versus House of Representatives, the former
Chief Justice Renato in a separate concurring opinion with the possibility of two
impeachment complaints reaching the Senate. The good chief justice said that the
Senate in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction can decide the question of
whether or not the one-year bar rule has been violated or not. The Senate can even
decide if on its face the impeachment complaint
has no legal basis. Francisco over House of Representatives. If the Senate finds
that the one year bar rule is violated or that the impeachment complaint has no
legs to stand on, that will be the end of the entire controversy. He was saying
that let's give all the remedies available to the house and the senate because of
their primary jurisdiction. But when the case is ripe for judicial determination,
it was the view of the former chief justice that the Supreme Court at that time and
only at that time when it can
speak with great moral authority in order to compel the loyalty, the respect and
the obedience of our people. Mr. President, when the Supreme Court negates the
actions of a co-equal branch of government, it does not assert its superiority.
Instead, it upholds the supremacy and the dominance of the fundamental law of the
land, the constitution. And so the the Supreme Court has already spoken the last
arbiter of law. It says the complaint is unconstitutional. is void of insue. It's
violative of due
process. The Senate never acquired jurisdiction over this. It is immediately exe.
On that note, Mr. President, I respectfully move that impeachment complaint be
dismissed. I so move, Mr. President. Majority floor leader. Mr. President, uh
before Mr. President, we uh act on the motion of the distinguished gentleman from
uh the great province of Tarlac and result. Mr. President, um the motion is not
among the privilege uh motions listed under our rule, rule 32, section 90 of our
rules. Uh therefore, Mr. President, it
is debatable and may be subject to clarificatory questions. Nonetheless, Mr.
President uh our moveant Senator Marcoleta has the floor and uh Mr. President
subject to his consent and uh with his magnanmity um clarificatory questions on the
motion may be entertained. In fact, Mr. President, we have some members of the
Senate who wanted to uh interpolate uh with the permission Mr. President of the
What is the pleasure of Senator S, our distinguished minority floor leader? Thank
you, Mr. President. If the uh
distinguished gentleman from uh um Tarlock favor me with a few questions, I will be
gladly uh accepting his uh favor and uh and then if the Senate President will allow
me after a few questions uh I will make my own manifestation to that effect. The
gentleman may proceed. Um should Senator Marleta so allow it? Yes, Mr. President.
Thank you the uh your honor. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you. So uh
listening to the privileged speech of uh the distinguished gentleman from Tarla,
the basis of your motion to dismiss is
the Supreme Court's decision um which is now pending pending appeal by virtue of
the MR or the motion for reconsideration filed um last Monday by the House of
Representatives. Is it is is it not your other the question whether is it yes your
basis for your motion to dismiss is based on the Supreme Court decision that uh the
so-called impeachment is unconstitutional based on their decision. Yes, Mr.
President, your honor and that's very very clear and categorical. Correct. Uh the
Supreme Court decision,
Mr. President although immediately executo is not yet final thus appealable. So may
I ask the gentleman, what will happen if we prematurely dismiss the case and the
Supreme Court subsequently grants the MR and reverses its own decision. The
question, Mr. President, is speculative. Yes. Yes. May I have a speculative answer,
Mr. President we cannot speculate we can only guess second guess because on the
basis of our experience as a practicing lawyer Mr. President decision motion for
reconsideration
we are hoping against hope. It is as if we are wishing for the moon. a unanimous
decision. Mr. President, I will accept the answer of the gentleman, but uh I have
done my research, Mr. interested and um to remind everyone the reversal of the
Supreme Court's own decision is not impossible even in landmark cases in the case
of uh Labugal Bilahan Tri Tribal Association Incorporated versus Victor Ramos uh GR
number 127882 December 1st 2004 for questioning the constitutionality of Republic
Act 7942
or the mining law, the Philippine Mining Law. The Supreme Court granted the MR
reversing and setting aside its earlier ruling and all of us also, Mr. President,
just a few days ago, just a few days ago, the Supreme Court reversed its own ruling
on the definition of a stockholder. This is the case of Lily Lopez versus uh Lolita
Lopez with GR numbers 25497 957-58. So, for [Music] Mr. Presidentous decisions. Uh
I am not sure about that. I uh but one thing I can I can say is that uh if there is
a mistake
unanimous decision could become a unanimous mistake Mr. President. Well, Mr.
president, there's always a first time uh regardless of whether it's unanimous or
not. Unanimous decision does not bar an appeal or a reversal, Mr. President. That
is one thing for sure. Now, um secondly, where is the ball, Mr. President, or the
meaning the impeachment case itself? Is it in the Senate or in the impeachment
court? Didn't the impeachment court throw it back? Remanded, returned to the House
of
Representatives. So, what are we dis what are we dismissing in the Senate? Can we
continue hearing the case and dismissing it without the impeachment case in our
hands? Can we throw the ball out when the ball is not in our possession? sense of
proper sequencing of moves impeachment case. Mr. President [Music] clarificatory
statement proceedings 19th Congress Senate Congress Congress on June 30, 2024. Mr.
President, immediately. House of Representatives, unconstitutional, void of Thank
you, Mr. President. Uh your honor
thank you but as I said earlier it not because it is uh immediate and execut does
not mean it's not appealable. Now um to continue Mr. President I hope you don't
mind I will be posing a question but then uh I will be doing a manifestation based
on this question that I will be posing. Um so I'm certain that the gentleman from
Kala has read the 97 pages ruling of the Supreme Court to come up with this this
motion. So the question is must we agree on the statement of the decision of the
Supreme Court on page three page 56 as basis that the one-year ban has set in with
that question allow me to proceed with my manifestation with your permission Mr.
interested. For the benefit of our colleagues, my colleagues, the last paragraph of
page three states that quote, "Since the 19 Congress terminated, the three
impeachment complaints became enacted upon." End of quote. Again, this was
reiterated in page 56, second paragraph of Roman numeral 5. It says, quote, the
House of Representatives, however,
was unable to act on the first three impeachment complaints because of the
adjournment of the 19th Congress. to continue. For constitutional purposes, the
first three complaints were effectively dismissed. In both instances, Mr.
President, the Supreme Court was referring to the February 5, 2025 adjournment, but
they have, excuse me, erroneously believed that the said adjournment is the same
adjournment with the Sen adjournment that ends a congress. It is not. February 5
did not terminate the 19th
Congress as stated in the decision. The senior adjournment of the Cong 19 Congress
was on June 13, 2025 wherein the last session day was last June 11. Mr. president
and for the information of the public. There is a world of difference between
adjournment versus adjournment. Uh for the Christmas break, adjourn for the Easter
break adjourn for the election period. Nothing dies. The treaties, bills,
resolutions, anything filed continues. It does not it is never archived. Well,
perhaps the the lawyers of the
ponentes did not realize that or they were not familiar with the rules of Congress.
As I said, this is a world of difference. Now this is a transcendental case
unlocking constitutional issue oral arguments or at the very least a consultation
with some members of Congress or members of of the bar Congress regarding the
procedure in that matter alone. Mr. President Omnibus unos false falsus omnibus. Uh
mistake in one mistake in all. In that manner they wouldn't have decided based on
their unfamiliarity
with the legislative process. Maybe maybe not everyone may may uh appreciate the
importance of the legislative calendar of Congress but us it is a big deal. That's
why I'm stressing this point concurrent joint resolution when we approve this
calendar only to be misinterpreted and used erroneously in this case 19 congress
now distinguished gentleman from Tla complaint decision. In addition to this
factual error, Mr. President, it can be seen in the website of the House of
Representatives
that the three impeachment complaints were referred to the committee and rules and
were consigned to the archives on February 6, not February 5 as claimed in page 78
of the decision. Housekeeping House in archive hindi to end the congress. This
archiving were not the results of the ending of the 19th Congress, but because of
the fact that the fourth complaint were uh already filed and transmitted to the
Senate, Mr. President complaint now to continue Mr. president and this is very much
related.
Um the Supreme Court uh by the way uh if it is wrong I if the complete done by the
House of Representatives was wrong we cannot correct a wrong with another wrong.
The Supreme Court essentially amended the constitution by removing the third mode
of filing of each uh impeachment complaint. This this uh third uh and speedy mode
was enshrined there for a reason. in times uh that there is an urgent need to
impeach a person who is influential and powerful and may use his position to evade
the law. The third mode which is the fastest
way was provided in the constitution. Why don't why did they ask why don't you ask
the authors of this provision in the constitution uh constitutionalist or codcon
delegates monsuda um serento so Mr. President continuing if the Supreme Court is
now changing the meaning of initiating then at the very least please apply it
prospectively. However, they are applying this new ruling retroactively which is a
violation of the doctrine of operative facts. impeachment, the impeachment
proceedings. In the words of retired uh
Supreme Court senior justice Antonio Kalpio, I quote, "The said Supreme Court
decision practically voided the impeachment proceedings against former President
Joseph Estrada and former Chief Justice Renato Corona. that will ultimately affect
future impeachment and legislative rules and proceedings. I've read that the basis
for the retroactive application of the new definitions because the Senate now has
not acquired jurisdiction yet. Mr. as an impeachment court. He even sent out
summons.
June 9, uh the Senate President took his oath. June 10 convene at the impeachment
court remand to the H to the House of Representatives issue of the summons to the
defense. So now just an observation I will I will try to to um shorten this Mr.
President. Just an observation Mr. President. Well not only myself but several
lawyers mentioned this to me including my godson former Senate Presidentel the
third. decision. It is incoherent and some parts are off topic. It even quoted the
entire article 11 of
the constitution not only once but twice. It seems there were two. Well, that is
there and my observations just an observation. So, Mr. President, the personalities
in this present impeachment case is of no moment to me. The vice president is a
friend of mine. The vice the the former president. Uh, President Duterte has been
my friend since 1988. Everybody knows that. What I'm pointing out is the danger of
outright dismissing the impeachment proceedings by virtue of a decision that is not
yet
final and still pending appeal. Justice Leodin himself said, "Mr. President, I
quote, the Supreme Court is not perfect. Citizens and academics certainly have the
right to call attention to the fallability of the courts. There is no perfect
institution even supreme court abuse of discretion or culpable violation of the
constitution. A case decided unanimously does not mean that it is infallible. For
all we know, it is a unanimous mistake that again can be corrected by setting aside
and reversing prior
pronouncements. Again, they have filed the HRP has uh the office of the solicitor
general has filed the MR last Monday. So in this regard, we shall wait for the
resolution of the MR. Please let us allow and give chance to the Supreme Court to
rectify its decision which contains clear and blatant errors for their sake and for
the sake of future future proceedings. Let us not dismiss forthwid and in that
light considering the motion of the gentleman to motion to dismiss. I move to table
the motion to dismiss.
A motion to table is a higher precedence than a motion to dismiss. Thank you, Mr.
President. Mr. President, may I have a quick reaction to the manifestation of the
gentleman? The gentleman may do so if he so desires. Mr. President, in the answer
of the solicitor general in behalf of the House of Representatives, there was
already a categorical admission that the three initial complaints prior to the
fourth one were dismissed because they were all archived. As I have said, archiving
is not part of the rules of impeachment of
the House of Representatives, but they just did it. Mr. Speak. Mr. President, these
are not baby steps. These are constitutional steps. Inclusion in the 10th session
day is constitutional. The referral to an appropriate committee is constitutional.
There was no referral to any committee Senate without requiring themselves to
observe another provision of their own rules. This is to refer to the justice
committee where the vice president might probably be given at least a modicum of
right to defend themselves. That that is
what we call due process. Section rules and adjournment. Initial proceedings
initial proceedings will be considered under the doctrine of operative facts.
[Music] Senate of the 19th Congress clarification. All these initial proceedings
conducted in the Senate of the 19th Congress were not officially transmitted to the
28th Congress where we I myself belong. a Congress of different composition issue
because there is no other agency of government that will execute that decision of
the Supreme Court only the
Senate. So may I go back to the to the first question to the original to the to the
original motion Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, if I may, Majority of
Lord leader. Thank you, Mr. President. With the indulgence of uh my colleagues, Mr.
President, our uh Senate Minority Leader, Senator Sto, and uh first movement of uh
the motion. Uh Mr. President, Senator Marcoa, may I uh respectfully appeal, Mr.
President, of our uh and remind Mr. president, our colleagues of our uh uh
concurrence
during our uh caucus held last week that we uh will debate on this and uh talk
about this uh and discuss this matter, Mr. President. But if the uh minority leader
would uh uh continue to u insist his uh motion, Mr. President, we have no other
choice but to uh uh dispose with the uh motion of the m uh minority leader
considering that it takes a precedence. Uh Mr. President with the motion of uh
Senator Marcoa. It is the understanding of the chair that during our all member
caucus which the chair
announced in plenary that it was agreed unanimously by all the members that we will
be discussing, debating and acting on the Supreme Court decision on a date certain
and this was the date certain that was agreed upon um in caucus. Um so um may we
hear from the um distinguished minority floor leader if um there has been a change
in that position given on that date when we had an all member caucus. Mr.
President, I um I as a matter of fact concar with what you said, but during that
time when we discussed it,
there was no MR filed. There was no mission motion for reconsideration filed by the
House of Representatives or this general. So it becomes a different it develops
into a different uh scenario now that there is a motion for reconsideration because
again my question was not uh clearly answered when I said what happens if we move
to dismiss as uh what as a Senate or impeachment court. I think that is one of the
questions that is going to be posed by another member of the Senate and we wish
that you could recognize them to
continue debate on this matter before we decide. But again, my answer is that there
was no motion for reconsideration when we agreed to decide on August 6 on the
motion to dismiss. That's why my motion is not against the motion to dismiss, Mr.
President. It is merely a motion to table. The motion to dismiss which you may be
able to take up on the floor even tonight or tomorrow. A motion to table is alive
always in uh in parliamentary rules and you may take it up any time then we can
take up the
motion to dismiss after that. Mr. President, thank you. We note the intent of the
distinguished minority floor leader, but the chair would therefore um the chair
would therefore like to make some points known before we act on the motion. What is
the pleasure of the majority? Mr. President, upon the uh upon confirmment with the
minority leader, Mr. President, he is amendable, Mr. President, for us to continue
with the discussions and debate on this uh particular topic, Mr. President. And so
with that, Mr. President, may I uh uh
may I move that we uh recognize the distinguished gentleman from Cavid, Senator
Panfilo Ping Lakon to uh ask his questions, Mr. President? Well, first chair would
like to thank the magnanimity of the um distinguished minority floor leader in
order for us to be able to continue with the debates. The gentleman from Kavita,
Senator Lakon is recognized for his interjections with leave of course of the
gentleman who has the floor, Senator Marleta. You may proceed, sir. If Senator
Marceta so desires Thank you,
Mr. President. Uh, this is not an interpolation. Rather, this is a manifestation to
be followed by a parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman may proceed. Mr. President,
I've been diligently reading and reviewing the rules of the Senate since I've been
out of this August chamber for three years. Nowhere in our rules can I find a
provision on a motion to dismiss as submitted by the honorable gentleman from
Tarlap. Neither is there a supplement uh supplementary application of the rules of
court to offer a space for such
motion to dismiss except perhaps in the committees performing their legislative
inquiries in aid of legislation. Obviously, we are now assembled in plenary, not as
an impeachment court, but as a legislative body, and I cannot relate to a motion in
an issue that involves a collective decision that falls solely and exclusively
under the jurisdiction and authority of an impeachment court. Having said that, Mr.
President, my parliamentary inquiry is addressed, of course, to the Senate
President. Mr. President, how do we deal with the
pending motion? I refer to the motion to dismiss. Shall we even take it up or deal
with it? Motion to dismiss. So guidelines in addressing the motion to dismiss
submitted by the honorable Maruleta assuming arguendo Mr. President that the motion
is voted upon and adopted by this body what if what if Mr. President, the Supreme
Court reverses itself when it rules on the MR filed by the House of Representatives
through the Soulgen. Shall we also backtrack and reverse ourselves in dismissing
the impeachment case? I pose that question,
Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Luxon. to respond. Um, we were faced
with this question, but the very people asking us to wait right now were the very
same people who were telling us before, to ignore the pendency of a case in the
Supreme Court precisely regarding this impeachment complaint. They were egging the
Senate, even if he were on recess, to precisely proceed with a trial in spite and
despite the pendency of cases in the Supreme Court. and the chair um with an
abundance of caution, same with us good senator right
now um decided to afford the Supreme Court time during the recess to decide on the
matter and when they did not um the Senate in accordance with um its duty convened
the impeachment court when we resume session given that we cannot um conduct
impeachment proceedings that have not yet begun yet during the recess to answer the
query with respect to um motion to dismiss. This was actually done although not via
a motion to dismiss but a motion to archive in relation to the impeachment
complaints of Senate of then Senate then
President Estrada and Ombudsman Guterres. In fact, in the case of OMBbudsman
Guterres, it was our distinguished minority floor leader himself acting as majority
leader, I believe, who moved that the case be archived given the resignation of um
then ombbudsman Gutierrez for being moot in the case of of um President Estrada.
The case was likewise um archived for being funus official given that um Edsa dos
happened and um a new president was sworn um into office. Um your honor, I believe
the chair believes that um we
will have different interpretations of the effect of the Supreme Court decision.
But ultimately, as I discussed with the majority leader earlier, um once a decision
is made by the Senate and the period to seek a reconsideration of that decision,
put a vote has expired, the next logical step would be to archive so that it will
be made part of our um records. It is the position of the chair subject to the um
wisdom of the plenary. Um your honor that given the Supreme Court decision that um
the sup the the the Senate never acquired
jurisdiction over it that um the proceedings and the articles of impeachment were
null and void abino. Um indeed there might not even be anything um to dismiss and
um the procedure would would be pro more properly to archive similar to what we
have done in the past so that these proceedings will still be made part of the
Senate's um records but we will cross that bridge once we put it to a vote. Mr.
President I I go back to my previous question Mr. President motion to dismiss. How
do we deal with
it? We are in plenary as a legislative body. We're not an impeachment court. So Mr.
President essence parliamentary inquiry the predisposition of the chair is what I
what I stated but subject of course to the wisdom of plenary maybe here from from
senator Marcoleta with respect to his ideas given that he is the proponent of the
motion. It is true that the motion to dismiss is not part of our rules but it is
part of our rules application rules of court in the rules of court dismiss a case
jurisdiction and
considering that the rules of court has become part of our rules that's why I use
the motion to dismiss jurisdiction 5000 Mr. Presidenturisdiction over the case. Mr.
President, Senator Lakson is recognized. Again I refer to our rules Mr. President
application rules of the Senate committee hearings inquiry in aid of legislation
but we are not there we're here in plenary rules of the Senate application rules
thank you Mr. President the point of Senator Lakson in so far as that is concerned
is well taken Senator
Pangalina ju just on the point of uh the rules of court being supple Mr. President
the rules that are suppleatory presupposes that there are no uh rules uh of the
Senate or the Senate Impeach impeachment court. In other words, in the absence of
uh a standing rule or provision of uh either our Senate rules or the Senate
impeachment court rules, then we refer to the rules of court as supatory to our
rules. But in this case, the Senate impeachment court has a specific uh rule uh uh
resolution number 39. Upon
presentation of the articles to the Senate, the Senate shall specify the date and
time for the consideration of such articles. Unless the Senate provides otherwise,
it shall continue in session from day to day until final judgment shall be rendered
and so much longer as may in its judgment be necessary. In other words, uh as an
impeachment court, of course, not as a Senate in plenary, but even that is now
being debated because this representation believes uh the sole power to try and
decide impeachment
cases is the impeachment court and not the Senate in plenary. President, Mr.
President Leader, Mr. President. Uh, next to interpolate, Mr. President, on the
list of this representation is the distinguished gentleman from Tagig and Pateros,
no other than Senator Alan Peter Kayano. I move that he be recognized. Mr.
President, if I may, Mr. President, with the indulgence of the good gentleman from
Tagig and Pateros, Senator Loto, but um um your honor, it's not an interpolation
yet, Mr. President. I follow up point to the
point of Senator Luxon if the lady gentleman. Thank you Mr. President and with the
indulgence as I said of the good gentleman from Tagiganos Mr. President Senator
Lakon at Senator Pangilano Senate or Senate Impeachment Court. Uh so this is a
point of inquiry actually a brief point of inquiry Mr. president uh related to the
the motions at bar. Now the question presented to the body is related to an ongoing
impeachment case which is within the jurisdiction of the impeachment court. Should
we not first
have the newly elected senators uh take their oaths as senator judges and convene
as an impeachment court? Uh I note, Mr. President, that the Supreme Court decision
is not yet final. uh as colleagues have mentioned a motion for reconsideration has
been filed by the House of Representatives and the court itself the Supreme Court
has given 10 days for the vice president uh to comment. So of inquiry Mr.
Presidenting officer with us convened as an impeachment court impeachment court
motions at bar Mr. President noted and
entered into the records. What is the pleasure of the honorable just a quick a very
quick intervention very quick Mr. President yes you may proceed sir. Yes Mr.
President and uh uh we place this on record after reading the ruling the decision
of the Supreme Court. Uh Mr. President, the Supreme Court referred to the Senate
Impeachment Court repeatedly and therefore it is the Senate Impeachment Court that
was also impleaded. It is the Senate Impeachment Court uh that may if it opts to
file a motion for reconsideration. And
therefore this motion to dismiss we believe should be forwarded to or tackled by
the Senate as an impeachment court. Your honor, just on that point, the parties
mentioned in the case is not the Senate impeachment court, but the Senate and um
the dispository um section of um the decision makes mention also of um the Senate,
if I may quote. Consequently, the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction to constitute
itself as an impeachment court. That's the decision of the court in Duterte v H.
Um, Mr. President, and we will go back to
the uh the earlier manifestations of the mic, please. We will go back to the
earlier manifestations of the minority leader. Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that we
have no jurisdiction. Yet the decision is flawed in terms of the facts on
procedure, the one-year bar, and on due process. This is at least, of course, our
assertion. And therefore, should we not wait for a motion for reconsideration to be
resolved before we proceed and vote uh on the matter that has removed from the
impeachment court jurisdiction?
Should we not at least assert the power and the prerogative under the constitution
of the Senate impeachment court in terms of the exclusive jurisdiction number one
and the sole power to try and decide? That is what we will be deciding and voting
upon this afternoon. Your honor Senator Kan is recognized. Thank you Mr. President.
the distinguished gentleman uh Senator Maruetta from Tarlac and uh Senator Nabong
Bansa. Mr. President, um initially I wanted to speak but very interesting po
question bringing up Senator Lakon but aside from
that Mr. President um crossroads And remember, assuming we do nothing today, I am
101% sure that on February 6, 2026, an impeachment case will be filed against the
vice president, maybe against other impeachable officers too. So I think it is very
important that decision social media, traditional media, meaning so at least here
we disagree, but whether we listen to the minority leader or to Senator Marua, we
agree to listen to each other and to examine each other's points. So, I just like a
few
minutes on some very important uh matters. Let let me start by the accusation that
because of this decision impeach. So may I ask Senator Maruetta if he would give me
the honor of asking him a few questions and allowing me to interpolate on two or
three topics. The first one is whether or not impossibly impeach under this
decision. The gentleman may proceed if Senator Marleta will so out. Yes, Mr.
President. Mr. President, I see the decision before you. I uh approached you last
week. You've been
studying it. I see your radio program decision. Apparently, Mr. Senator, you also
listen to criticism. So in your view uh may I take note first Mr. President that I
am glad that the senator made a distinction now he is for the rights of everyone.
He was adopted by PDP and run with a particular party but he is not a member of the
Duterte block. Am am I correct there? Technically speaking Mr. President, I am not
a member of the PDP, but uh I admit that I was uh adopted and I ran uh in unity
with uh some of the parties of
uh the PDP candidates at the time. The point I'm going at is like I was a cabinet
member in the Duterte administration, but I have not talked to the vice president.
I ran as an independent in 2022. So I speak now as a senator and not as a partisan.
I assume the same your honor that you're you're giving your own personal opinion as
senator Maruetta not as a partic of course I assume uh that for everyone here no
regardless of uh our position. So Mr. Senator impeachable officer Mr. President
officer Mr. President. So, Mr. President, I'm glad you mentioned Tamang Processo. I
think the way the Supreme Court said it in page 95 of the decision, there is a
right way to do the right thing at the right time. The problem, Mr. President, is
my decision former decisions definition initiation and many of us here were not
mere spectators there. I mean, Senator Sto I think was in the impeachment courta of
uh Senator Estrada, Senator Laurenu. Um, Senator Kiko was still on the we were
together. Senator Corona,
Senator Cheese and I and Senator Migs were in the house during the prayer oneird to
the Senate articles of impeachment. So strangers Mr. President Senator Supreme
Courtific Mr. president that on page 93 of the decision, the Supreme Court actually
narrated what has to be done for a valid impeachment complaint. Yes, Mr. President.
Allow me to read. One, the draft article of impeachment or resolution should be
accompanied by evidence when made available to members of the house, especially
those who are considering its
endorsement. Two, the evidence should be sufficient to prove the charges in the
articles of impeachment. Three, the draft articles of impeachment and their
accompanying evidence should be made available to all members of the House of
Representatives, not only to those who are being considered to endorsed.
Impeachment is an act of the entire house which requires a qualified minority of
only one-third of its members to be transmitted to the Senate. However, the House
of Representatives, it's a is a deliberative assembly where
each member should be allowed to represent the views of their constituents. Let me
stop there first. Mr. President, number one, articles of impeachment, Mr. President
so precisely Supreme Court that even if onethird endorse or file evidence let me go
to the second part the evidence would be sufficient to prove the charges in the
article of impeachment Mr. President sufficiency quality or burden of proof. Beyond
reasonable doubt, probable that there is probable cause that a crime was committed
and there is probable cause
that the accused committed that crime. Yes, Mr. President. So in the same manner if
you assume the evidence to be true it will be enough to convict because if not then
articles of impeachment evident evident is not sufficient to prove the charges.
Either the Senate will be a kangaroo court and convict without evidence or we will
be wasting our time. So number two, Mr. President. Mr. President, number three.
Number three. qualified minority. Impeachment merely being elected as a
representative of the district or of the
party list. Articles of impeachment. for signature pages. God and the world has a
way of correcting itself because now I have the privilege of serving the people
here not as a salin pusa and definitely your honor as chairman of the senate blue
ribbon committee is not a salin pusa here in the senate in fact you are uh an
esteeved neopight with a very powerful committee so again number three is just a
simple sala rule which is very good number four respondent have the opportunity to
be heard on the draft
articles of impeachment pleadings. President Committee on Justice Yeah. Before I go
to number five, just because I like your answer, Mr. President, one thing that
guides me. No. So I I I in in coming to my decision with this, I follow two books.
one, the Bible, which is of course a covenant between God and people to the
Constitution, which is a covenant among the Filipino people and the and the
government. Both books talk about due process. prohibited fruitcess. So, Mr.
President, I was thinking what
if and onethird onethird of members of Congress anti- administration impeachment
president Marcos impeach vice president Sara I wonder if all of us in this room and
out of this room will still have the same I hope I will I am I'm not judging I am
just saying Mr. president. What helps me is those two books, but also to put myself
in the opposite side, to put myself in that position. What if So, I I'm looking uh
I see my good friend, former Senate President Subiri shaking his head. So, Senator
Kiko, what if Vice
President Lenny and Senator Kiko won in 2022? And what if impeach Senator Kiko I
hope decision to support this this decision would be the same because so number
five a reasonable period of time determined on the basic of complexity of charges
must be given to all members of Congress. Yes. Senator House of Representatives
complaint is a few hundred pages. Mr. President, number impeachable act is an act
done while they were in their present office meaning Number seven, at the very
least to accord the opportunity to be heard under
the requirement of due process in the procedure under article 11 section 3
paragraph 4 after the draft articles of impeachment and required proof arrived at
letter A. The House of Representatives should provide a copy of the draft articles
and its accompanying evidence to the respondent and give her an opportunity to
respond within a reasonable period. Impeachable officers reply. Letter B simply
states that all members again it's the wang sala. So Mr. President, in other words,
it is not true that it is now too
difficult, page 93, 94, whether it's February 6 for the vice president or if anyone
wants to file an impeachment against anyone at any time. Mr. President, let me
reverse my question, Mr. President. officer. I'm I'm asking of course your your
opinion that I value Mr. President [Music] I I value your answer in due process,
Mr. President. And that's my second point. But if you would just also accept or
maybe I can put on record. I'm of the personal viewable officer budsman member of
constitutional
commissions uh president vice president supreme court it's an extraordinary remedy
in extraordinary circumstance not to penalize not to penalize them if they will
damage our country. So the the difference po with the this impeachment sa iba at
least the impeachment of president Estrada, president Aoyo and again may I be
sensitive especially to my friends here no who are uh of that administration was
with us against us or like senator jingo and senator JV feeling is that if there
was another
Chief Justice Department agency, police, military, NBI, Coast Guard, whatever. Yes,
we should hold her accountable. It's not true that today and tomorrow matters that
much because not only to cover her tracks or to damage the the the country. In
fact, I doubtpual disqualification but I don't want to go to the political aspect.
The the point I want to make, Mr. President is goldilock. So in in that point I see
why the Supreme Court they made a statement statement about history Supreme Court
poage 94. We understand our history. We have learned that the that in the past
momentary desires to do what is convenient and concede means to ends have
inadvertently created precedents that weaken the sucker of law for those who desent
or those that are societies margins or those who have fallen out of grace from the
powers that be. We have learned that the clash of political interests in the past,
often disguised by noble intentions, have obscured the need to address the real
problems of corruption, inequality, poverty, and
disempowerment faced by our people. Mr. President, after page 93, So I I think in
that sense, Mr. President, it's a it's a balanced decision. Question, Mr.
President, Senator, Senate Minority Leader, former Senate President Sto, operative
fact. Mr. President, Mr. President, um, may I venture to answer the question of
Senator Stoy? Martin, there was never an US. There was never an US. Supreme Court
void is but but I I have a reason, Mr. minority leaders, former Senate President
and Senator Ping. Why I
bring this up? Because I agree with Senator Pingmiss because Supreme Court and that
goes to my last point uh for your consideration, Senator Marleta, Supreme Court,
there was never an US void in so dismiss. So theoretically if we do not do anything
today we are following the Supreme Court decision except yeah that's why I'm
agreeing with you so agree with me when I'm agreeing with you Mr. or Senate
President and Senator Ping. How however however human nature is that if we do not
do anything people will say it's pending
and we do have the one-year uh one filing bar. So the constitution did not intend
that every single day of your life as ombbudsman as vice president president
impeachment. So it is also fair to the vice president that we dispose of this. The
question now is if it is void of initial why did not why did the Supreme Court not
uh apply the doctrine of operative fact in in my research two reasons. one bringing
up House of Representatives bringing up House of Representatives later on in the
MR. Number two, there is
a rule that um injustice or oppressor fact. So since my finding, please correct me
if I'm wrong. Since my finding my finding Supreme Court oneear bar operative
faction am I correct? Yes, Mr. President because the doctrine of operative fact is
based on equity and fairness. [Music] I see former secretary Jeremiah Bellica in
the crowd. Um s ease of doing business majority leader and senator ping I think
were the sponsors or the authors of the law. I I don't know covered congress. So 10
days ministerial supreme court
impeachment 10day ministerial. So even if you do not consider it archived if you
apply the ease of uh doing business uh law that uh secretary Jeremiah Bellica used
to very much push in government you would come to the same conclusion. My point is
Mr. President we'll never come out with a perfect decision. people will will will
disagree. That's why I agree with the statement of the IBP constitution agreement
adherence. The the north and south of the United States did not agree on slavery.
That's
why they fought a civil war because they had to see who will adhere to this
constitution. who will treat this piece of paper as a living soul and a covenant of
this country rather than just a piece of paper and United States. Supreme Court
decision and we will court we will court a uh a constitutional uh uh crisis. We
will tear the constitution apart because Mr. President this is uh going to second
to the last question. um may option bao not to follow the Supreme Court Mr.
President. So it's for academic discussion and for
criticism for enlightenment and trying to influence the court now decision in
accordance I respect the opinions for those who think decision but in actuality as
an institution we have to follow Mr. President is the gentleman a member of the
commission on appointments [Music] elect membership CA impeachment CA. What about
[Music] Court? nothing interest but we agree on many things but up when we disagree
Mr. President. So since we disagree slightly on dismiss, would the would the uh
moveant the distinguished senator
consider amend motion that uh the Senate obey or follow or acceptable minority the
Supreme Court decision? Because if the motion is to obey the Supreme Court, so if
the Supreme Court uh reconsiders, the motion still carries, then we will follow. If
they don't, we will still follow. And right now, it is immediately executo. So, as
far as I'm concerned, it doesn't exist. But I agree with the gentleman, there's
there's some action that is wanting it's there floating in the in the air.
Anyway, I I leave that as a question. There might be some people who want to
interpolate, Mr. President, but may I offer that solution? Um, we are allowed to
amend to to propose an amendment to any motion if the movement agrees. I am
amenable to an amendment, Mr. president like uh moving it to send it to the
archives like we will have the same result if that is the case and that I will be
uh pleasing uh Senator Sto if I do that. What is the pleasure of the honorable
stoing minority floor leader?
Thank you Mr. President. Um it grieves my heart to disagree. Um I think um I'd
rather call for the previous question a motion to table. It has the same effect and
you can bring it up any time but uh we did not say that we did not follow the
Supreme Court decision. It will not it will say it will not say that we archived as
the interpretation of the Supreme Court is hopefully we can find a middle ground
between the proposal of Senator Alan Kaitano and my motion to table which has a
higher precedence than the motion to dismiss.
But Mr. President, that is not consistent with the immediate character of the
decision. The decision says it is immediately executenator. Somehow there should be
some action be the people are waiting for for for some kind of a closure before uh
this chamber because that particular decision is directed to no one but to the
senate. Mr. President, Mr. President. Um before the chair recognizes any member, um
the parliamentary status is that um a motion was made by the honorable Marcoleta
which he is willing to amend
and a more a higher um order of president's motion was made by the honorable
minority floor leader. Both are pending and um to afford time for both the minority
leader and the original movement to perhaps consider and find a compromise as
agreed upon earlier. Can we proceed with the um interpolations and interjections
manifestations if you will of the other members who had manifested to so interject
and um make known their position through a manifestation or interpolation? Yes, Mr.
President. Therefore, I
withdraw the call for the previous question, you know, and then allow that uh to to
proceed. But then again, just a point of information for the the for our
colleagues. You know, the Supreme Court has just received a motion for a TTRO for
the Senate not to take up the uh this particular uh case. Um it was filed yesterday
by uh the uiled former um um associate senior justice um Tony Karpio um also man
Konita Kalpo Morales Commissioner Heidi Mendoza religious leaders former military
and public servants Michelle among students and the
youth and the academ they have filed a TTRO with the Supreme Court and we are
awaiting something to that effect it might come out today and then we are again so
hopefully yes we can we can proceed Mr. President thank you thank you minority
floor leader his your manifestation is Julie noted Senator Kayano Mr. President,
let me agree up. Yeah, let me just agree with both you and the minority leader. Uh,
and of course, thank Senator Marleta for his openness in proposing an amendment
actual words. But, Mr. President
Most of us have dug in already legal opinion. So framing so meaning I don't mind if
I vote for or against the proposition at least. So like I would vote to follow the
the Supreme Court decision. I'm thinking whether I'll vote to dismiss because the
Supreme Court said it did not exist void of initi. But I don't want to vote against
it because if I vote against it, it is live and precisely the Supreme Court said ex
uh immediately executo. No. So, um, let let me yield the floor, but I'm hoping some
of us can come up
with language that will be acceptable. We might not have a unanimous vote, but at
least Claro, thank you very much, Senator Marcoa. Um, Mr. President, just a point
of information. Senator Payan is recognized for her point of information. Yes.
Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I'm I'm happy to be corrected. Uh we have in uh uh on
the floor I don't know maybe five or six uh majority previous majority floor
leaders. Um Senator Allan was a majority floor leader. The minority floor leader
was uh Senator Sto
was a majority floor leader. Senator Kiko was a majority floor leader. Senator
Subiri, former Senate President was also a majority floor leader. I hope I didn't
forget anyone. Lauren also Lauren was a majority floor leader. So on that note, I
just want so again I'm I'm happy to be corrected but uh the rules to my knowledge
do not limit us to a particular kind of motion. Rule 31 uh tit the title is
presidents of motion. So it it uh lists the motions that take precedence. Uh rule
32 is the privilege
motion. It doesn't mean that we cannot have a different motion. So just put that on
the table so that those who want to be creative can continue this discussion later
on when we get to that point that we are deciding uh if we will rephrase if we
choose to uh look for a more appropriate uh wording. But uh I'd like to to include
this um in everyone's uh for everyone's consideration that there doesn't seem to be
a limitation on what motion what kind of motion uh we can present to the body.
Thank you.
Thank you very much uh Senator Gada. Mr. President, at this juncture, may I move
that we recognize the distinguished gentleman from Davo, Senator Bau Dear Rosa.
Senator Dear Rosa is recognized. What is your pleasure, sir? Next. Thank you, Mr.
President. I just would like to make a clarification, Mr. President, that uh it was
it was it is very clear to me during our our caucus uh we have agreed that today on
this date we are going to tackle this uh Supreme Court ruling and we have to debate
on this and we have to
decide on this today. It was not part of the agreement that whenever the House of
Representatives file a motion for consideration plan to decide today. So, Mr.
President, I'm just asking your honor, the Senate is a collegial body and decides
everything by dividing um the House. The current parliamentary status is that we
have um two motions that have not yet been acted upon. One has presidents over the
other. [Music] motion president. Majority floor leader, Mr. President, just very
quickly,
Mr. President, very quickly, is this already your just an interjection on the point
raised by Senator Delar Roa, Majority Leader President, u if I may appeal, Mr.
President, to distinguish gentleman from Pampanga, Mr. president because next uh to
interpolate is the uh distinguished lady from u um Iloilo Mr. President and then
it's his turn Mr. President just a quick manifestation Mr. President gentleman may
proceed for his quick manifestation because it has been referred uh repeatedly
about what we agreed on in
the caucus Mr. President, we agreed to decide on this matter and if the decision is
to lay it on the table, that is a decision of the Senate in plenary. In other
words, uh we we didn't agree on deciding that uh we will uh decide on a motion to
dismiss. We didn't agree that we would decide on um holding it in obeyance. We said
we will decide. Your honor, that's precisely what the chair said. Um we will be
deciding on these pending motions at the proper time after debate. Senator
Antiveros is
is recognized for her interpolation and interjection if Senator Marcoa so desires.
Yes Mr. President po Mr. President um in lie of an interpolation of the good
gentleman from uh Tarlac uh I will be seconding uh a motion Mr. President uh
preceded by a brief manifestation um earlier Mr. President Senator Marcoleta said
he refuses to speculate on reversal, but the good gentleman's own position is based
on his own speculation that the SC will not reverse its decision. A tableabling of
the motion to dismiss uh which is what I
will second in a few minutes, Mr. President. A tableabling of the motion to dismiss
by the Senate today is not defiance of the Supreme Court. final decision comment
VP. That is why I will be seconding the motion of the minority leader to table the
motion to dismiss the impeachment complaint until the decision of the Supreme Court
has attained finality. Tama po, we should exercise extraordinary prudence in this
matter of transcendental importance. Still, I also wish to also take this
opportunity to
express my thoughts at this crucial moment for our chamber. Mr. President, I agree
and I continue to respect the Supreme Court. But Mr. President, I will not be
choosing silence, nor will I be turning a blind eye in the face of clear and
unmistakable injustice. I am encouraged by the words of brave professors of the UP
College of Law who in 2010 issued a sharp critique of a Supreme Court decision,
Vinua versus Executive Secretary, which said the court cannot regain its
credibility and maintain its moral authority without
ensuring that its own conduct whether collectively or through its members is beyond
reproach. So in the context of the SC decision Duterte versus House of
Representatives, I believe we need to shed light on some concerns which former
justices and constitutional framers themselves, some of whom are here this
afternoon, Mr. President, have underscored. The Supreme Court decision was based on
critical factual errors minority leader and this has since been pointed out by no
less than retired senior associate justice Antonio Karpio.
For example, the decision said that the February 5 impeachment complaint was
transmitted to the Senate without a plenary vote in the House. A simple check of
the records, specifically House Journal number 36, shows that this is false.
Hakahaka, those official records are plain for anyone to see. Sabi Tuloy, retired
Chief Justice Ren, Reinato Espuno, chairman of Philippine Constitution Association.
The Supreme Court was faced with a famine of facts necessary to make a decision
invulnerable to constitutional
assaults. Actions already taken under a prior and valid interpretation should be
recognized as legally effective. Retired Justice Adolf Auna. The House of
Representatives was operating under the regime of the legal doctrines in Francisco
and Gutierrez which held that the initiation of pro in impeachment proceedings
begins from referral unconstitutional legal doctrines. In the words of Justice
Asuna, that is legally unfair. 2020 Madreo versus Prospect prospective
applications, Mr. president are not found in our
fundamental lawitution accountability. One disturbing example House bank, public
record Impeachment Court, potential witness checklist. Impeachable officials
requirements. An official facing impeachment does not stand to lose fundamental
constitutional rights such as life, liberty, or property. Impeachment due process
impeachment trial evidence that is due process. So what are we afraid of Mr.
President? Constitutional Commissioners Christians takeitutional commission
deliberations commission particular sig
commissioner regal miulo decision in Firestone Ceramics Inc. versus Court of
Appeals, the court conceded that it is not infallible. Should any error of judgment
be perceived, it does not blindly adhere to such error. In this jurisdiction,
rectification of an error more than anything else is of paramount importance. In
the 2010 letter that I mentioned earlier, the UP law professors said that the
position of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all controversies requires
competence and integrity
completely above any and all reproach. A breach of these values, the professor
said, does violence to the primordial function of the Supreme Court as the ultimate
dispenser of justice and the UP law who led that letter to the Supreme Court
decision. Dear Mr. President, dear colleagues, I believe this decision is of the
highest public interest whose consequences will echo through time and history.
journalists, political analysts, academics, one day, and this day will come.
History will judge all of us based on our
actions. Today, August 6, 2025, when history comes to remember, let's hope we stood
where it mattered. that even in the face of doubt, we did what was right and just.
With deep respect for the Supreme Court and all institutions of our country, Mr.
President, I therefore second the motion to table the motion to dismiss the
impeachment complaint until the decision of the Supreme Court has attained
finality. Salamat po. Mr. President, Mr. President, quickly noted and entered into
the records. Um,
Senator Marlet, Mr. President, speculative, it was not based on my own speculation.
It was based on uh my long practice as a litigation lawyer. In the last 40 years,
Unanimous decision void abinio unconstitutional violative of due process. Maybe if
we can speculate that all the members of the Supreme Court after the filing of the
motion for reconsideration will resort to their worst will resort to the worst
angels of their nature. Maybe what what do we expect? We expect that eight of them
will reverse themselves
altogether or whatever word is applicable under miraculous circumstances or we are
all reversing ourselves. Mr. President, guidelines. Mr. President, if you recall,
the Supreme Court issued a notice on July 8, 2025, requiring at least 11
information from the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Senate made a
manifestation House of Representatives. Supreme Courtcess, House of
Representatives. Timing complaint. Every article of impeachment impeachment
complaint general in behalf of the House of
Representatives. It is the position of the house that these matters pertain to its
internal proceedings which have always been regarded as beyond the jurisdiction and
scrutiny of this honorable court. This is especially because the matters referred
to the preparation, circulation and perusal of the impeachment complaint as well as
its attachment are not governed by a specific constitutional provision or the house
rules. Soitution House rules. Additional guidelines. Mr. President, months. Mr.
President,
Mr. President, I am ready to amend my motion that will be consistent on the respect
accorded to the Supreme Court. will be hanging on the balance. Mr. President, thank
you, Senator Marleta. Mr. President, what is the pleasure of the minority floor
leader? Thank you, Mr. President. Um, caution is the word uh simply being put forth
by this representation, Mr. president because again the distinguished gentleman
from with respect again I said there's always a first time I will quote the Supreme
Court
themselves in the Pedro versus Romaan Development Corporation GR1947 751 July 1,
2015. I quote, Supreme Court, while the Supreme Court's decisions are immediately
executed final until the lapse of the prescribed period without a motion for
reconsideration or upon denial of such motion. Finally, For all you know, I might
vote to I might move the on the motion to dismiss if there is such a motion because
according to Senator Lakon, it does not exist in the Senate. It exists in the
impeachment court. And what I am being
told is that it should be the defense, the lawyers of the defense who should boast
that motion to dismiss, not a judge. Uh so I I uh agree with Senator Lson. There is
no such thing as a motion to dismiss in the Senate in the impeachment court. Yes.
Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. By the way, just one last point. Why did the Supreme
Court ask Sara to comment and exec was asked to comment by the Supreme Court just a
few days ago Mr. Speak President. May I invoke section 135 of the Senate rules? If
there is no rule applicable to a
specific case, the proceedings of the legislative department of the Philippines
shall be resorted to specific rules 135 motion to archive which is consistent to
the immediate execution of the decision of the Supreme Court address to this August
chamber. court will decide later on which is which is based on impossibility noted
and entered into the records. Mr. President, Mr. President, ju just what is the
pleasure of the honorable Kan? Just uh one minute Mr. President just for the
information of the body there's
actually a Supreme Court case about uh the power to dismiss a case po Velasquez
versus Velasquez Jr. versus Lisandre Land 2020 case. In order for the court or an
adjudicative body to have authority to dispose the case that to dispose of the case
on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter. It is aumatic
that the jurisdiction of their subject matter is conferred by law and not by the
consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by er erroneous belief of
the court that it
exists. Thus, when a court or tribunal has no jurisdiction over the subject matter,
the only power it has is to dismiss the action. So, Supreme Court jurisdiction It
does not exo articles of impeachment. The impeachment court is triggered by an
articles of impeachment. Article of impeachment court. So yes, it's true. It is a
fact, not an operative fact. It is a fact. It is not an operative fact.
jurisdiction. Lastly, Mr. President, s rule 39, section 4, judgment not stayed by
appeal, judgments in actions for
injunction, receiverhip, accounting, support, and such other judgments that are now
or hereafter be declared to be immediately executo shall be enforcable after the
rendition and shall not be stayed by an appeal. Um, some may say this is for
injunction, receiverhip, etc. and not for the impeachment court. Point Mr.
President, your honor, this is a case for injunction. Yes. Filed by um the vice
president against both the Senate and the House. Thank you for that clarification.
But even if it was not, Mr. President, that
is why if we the the gentleman from Tarlac already said he's amendable. So
something like uh we move to act upon the Supreme Court decision and archive the
case. motion now we act upon the Supreme Court then at the proper time someone can
say here we will act upon the latest decision of the Supreme Court so I I'm just
saying this in the spirit Mr. president at least because some of us might not vote
for the motion to dismiss just because we believe there is no such thing as a
motion to dismiss but I don't think
that's our point. Our point is for a few months February 6 game noted and entered
into the records majority floor leader. Thank you Mr. President. Next to
interpolate Mr. President is the uh distinguished gentleman from uh Pampanga. But
uh the the gentleman from Pampanga is uh yielding the floor to the our uh deputy
minority leader. Yes. What is the pleasure of the honorable antiveros? Uh thank you
Mr. President and to the good gentleman from Pampanga point of information good
gentleman Tarlac. uh that in fact
the Supreme Court uh has reversed a unanimous decision in a lot of instances
before. Halimawa, League of Cities of the Philippines versus KLC original decision
2008, reversal on motion for reconsideration 2009. Isaong Halimawa, International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri Biotech Applications Inc. O Isaal versus
Greenpeace Southeast Asia. Original decision unanimous December 8, 2015. Reversed
unanimously on Mr. Den July 26, 2016. So minority leader, there's always a first
time. It has happened before.
Mr. President, Senator Margaretto, may I know from the good senator if these
decisions are bank decisions or divisions? Yes, Mr. President. Unbank decisions po.
Well, you have to cite the uh the jurist. Gladly cite the GR number Mr. President
members Supreme Court 15 of them unanimous to reiterate what Mr. President to
reiterate what I already said reversal unanimous Supreme Court decisions. Yes, but
I am asking for qualification, Mr. President, whether these are bank decisions or
decisions by a division
and whether or not they were characterized by whether or not the decisions are
characterized by the following qualifications. One, unconstitutional, void of
initial, violative of due process. All these are present in those juristprudent
cases as you cited Mr. President Mr. President Supreme Court decision, League of
Cities of the Philippines versus Com. The Supreme Court in its original decision in
2008 unanimously declared the cityhood laws unconstitutional. Uh I will have to get
more information
po on the ISA um reversal of unanimous decision. So the original uh assertion
unanimous decision uh has fallen by the wayside cuz the Supreme Court as I said
already earlier has reversed a unanimous decision unbanked in a lot of instances
before Mr. President noted and entered into the records majority of Lord leader.
Yes Mr. President may I move that we recognize the next interpolator the gentleman
from Pampanga Senator Kiko Pangan. Yes, Mr. President. Senator Pangalin is
recognized and may proceed. Should the gentleman um so
desire? Yes. Yes, Mr. President. Yes, Mr. President. U this is not an interpolation
but uh with the permission of uh the gentleman from Tarlak. Uh we will just make a
u manifestation. The gentleman may proceed. Thank you uh Mr. President. Mr.
President, governmental entities. Judicial review, sole power, House of
Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings. sole power impeachment court
impeachment case review power sole power house of representatives Initiate
impeachment proceeding sole
power having the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases. ruling Civil
Liberties Union versus the Executive Secretary [Music] S. Francisco case versus H.
The constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and one section is not to be
allowed to defeat another. In this case, the judicial review should not be
defeated. The sole power of the house to initiate should not be defeated and the
sole power of the senate to try and decide cases. All mandates, all duties, all
constitutional powers that do not
belong to us that was given to us not by any whim but by the constitution. All of
whom here sworn to uphold and defend. way forward. Justice motion for
reconsideration. Operative facts doctrine should apply prospectively. Number one.
Iran, House of Representatives to initiate and at the same time to try and decide
the case. The Supreme Court has reversed itself even in a unanimous decision. But
if even assuming it does not reverse itself in this case, the Supreme Court may
modify its ruling. And therefore, if it
modifies the ruling, assuming that it modifies but does not reverse itself, should
we not await the resolution of the motion for reconsideration before we vote today?
We hold it in obeyance or we table it. Uh, Mr. President, if I may add, the SC the
Supreme Court [Music] impeachment court. The convening of the impeachment court was
voided. The uh majority decision to remand the complaint to the HO was voided. The
uh summons by this by the impeachment court were all voided. Which brings us to the
question, who now
is deciding the impeachment case. Now that all the decisions of the impeachment
court have been voided, it's a tricky question, Mr. President. But if I were to be
an impeachment court judge, I would argue that we have to in the MR in the motion
for reconsideration intervene and uphold our excl the impeachment court's exclusive
power to try and decide the case. Why? because it is our constitutional because it
is the constitutional duty to do so. It is the order of the constitution. We are
not defying the
judicial review powers. We are upholding the sole power of the senate to try and
decide impeachment cases. But having said that, it is our view and this is shared
precisely by former Supreme Court Chief Justice Panganiban, former Chief Justice
Puno, former Constitutional Commissioner and Justice Askuna. They have seen or they
have read their decision and they too have said that the Supreme Court aired on a
matter of facts. And if the Supreme Court aired on a matter of facts, how can you
be right
with the law if you are wrong with the facts? And if you are not right with the
law, why will the Supreme Why will the impeachment court and the Senate for that
matter decide on the matter today? Why not wait for the motion for reconsideration?
Supreme Court, House of Representatives, Parliamentary Courtesy, We are a co-equal
to the House of Representatives. repercussion. House of Representatives file motion
for consideration. Supreme Court findings of facts motion for reconsideration.
dismissed.
I think out of courtesy for a co-equal, we should respect the House of
Representatives. In the same way, if the Senate would at a future time file a case
before the Supreme Court and seeks a motion for reconsideration in a matter that
involves the House, we would like to think that the House will not act to have the
case dismissed out pending the MR out of respect for Ecoequal. uh the findings of
grave abuse by the Supreme Court, thereby removing or uh taking away from us the
jurisdictional jurisdiction. that jurisdiction was not
acquired on the basis of facts that are flawed. Where then is the grave abuse? I
don't know what the ruling will be. Perhaps they will say yes, there was no grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the house because of the one-year bar which was
not actually uh the fourth complaint was not bar. I don't know. But whatever it is,
Why reconvening of the impeachment court is the way to go. impeachment complaint.
We will be acting beyond without legal authority. Impeachment complaint in plenary
without legal authority. One final point in the Corona impeachment trial Supreme
Court bank accounts Senate Impeachment Court 13 Suprema. I did not vote in uh in
favor of uh the TTRO or respecting the TTRO, but the Senate as an impeachment court
voted and we respected it because it was the Senate impeachment court that decided.
It was not the Senate. It was the Senate impeachment court that seeing perhaps that
we needed to harmonize the power of judicial review, the power of the Senate as an
impeachment court uh to have the
sole uh the sole power rather to try and decide cases. Seeing that the supreme uh
the Senate in impeachment court decided to harmonize the conflicting provisions of
the constitution, I think we should as a Senate impeachment court do the same.
Crisis, so be it. But it ought to be the S Senate impeachment court that asserts
asserts its sole power to try and decide impeachment cases. And I associate myself
with the motion uh of the minority leader uh that we'd lay on the table the uh the
matter of
the impeachment uh case and action. Just a point of information for the record and
for the information of um the body chair confirms the um manifestation earlier of
Senator Kayana with respect to section 4 rule 39 of the rules of court that um says
that decisions of the court are not immediately execut. In this case the decision
specifically stated that it is immediately exe. Number two, again just for the
record, the Supreme Court itself through its spokesperson after the House filed
their motion for reconsideration
reiterated the immediately execut nature of the decision of the Supreme Court. And
finally, the Supreme Court's own internal rules states that the entry of judgment
shall be the date such decision or resolution becomes exeuto unless the court
directs its immediate execution. I am quoting and citing AM number 10-4-2-20 rather
SC specifically section 16 rule 16 rather section one. So there are conflicting
authorities with respect to the opinions raised by the various members. Senator
Moretto, what is your
pleasure? Just a quick reaction uh Mr. President on the manifestation of Senator
Pangalina in the exercise of the Supreme Court's judicial review power of the
Senate to try and hear impeachment cases. exclusive author. Committee on Justice
includes order of business day. 11 session day. Order of business. General
complaints. Order of business. Order of business. Additional reference of business.
Equity and fairness. alternative impeachment proceedings. official. one year ban
rule and the Supreme Court is not even
obligated and expected to conduct a microscopic a forensic and scientific scrutiny
of this provision for the pertinent language and the relevant meaning is as clear
as daylight. Mr. President, [Music] unanimous decision and bank decision of initial
unconstitutional violative of due process immediately execut Mr. President motion
reconsideration. This is borne out by my experience of more than 20 years of legal
practice. Mr. President immediately executive but you are wishing for the moon Mr.
President
Mr. President motion to dismiss any other language that will put to rest this issue
in obedience and in complete respect to the last word of the Supreme Court. It
being immediately executing his hand earlier. Senator Okino seems to be yielding to
Senator. Mr. President, may we recognize Senator uh Laxon, Mr. President. Thank
you, Mr. With the permission of Senator Okino, Senator Laxon is recognized. Thank
you, uh, Mr. President. Misimpression that may have been created by the
interpretation of the honorable
Merca section 135. Suppliatory application of the rules of court. Section 135. Mr.
President, if there is no rule applicable to a specific case, the presidents of the
legislative department of the Philippines shall be resorted to. And as supplement
to this, the rules contained in Jefferson's manual reicts presidents and practices
and hence presidents rules of court. What is expressly included excludes all
others. So rules of court interpretation. Honorable Mr. President noted President
may we recognize Senator
Bakino has been waiting for his turn to interpolate the gentleman from Tarot.
Senator Aino is recognized and may proceed. Gentleman allow it. Salamat, Mr.
President. Uh, this is a manifestation, not an interpolation. Mr. President, the
gentleman may proceed. impeachment courtement that's known to everyone. I've said
that in the media. Mr. President, in our history, assert co-equal branch of
government many times I remember in the '9s at that time President Senate to assert
its independence and to
do away with the US basis many times history. Mr. Presidents and balances and Mr.
President oversight or accountability sole power to try and decide all cases of
impeachment. Mr. Presidentution co-equal branch of government. Mr. President
impeachment proceedings. Mr. President, Let me read Mr. President article article 9
section 3 of our constitution accountability of public officers. In case the
verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least onethird of
all members of the
house, the same shall constitute the articles of impeachment and trial by the
Senate shall forth with proceeds of ouritution. Professor Ed Garcia, former
chairperson 2/3 members of the You know many times Mr. President out provision. In
the same sense, Mr. President, the framers of our constitution, many times, Mr.
President, usually Mr. Senator Educational attainment requirement. procedure. Of
course, Mr. President, it is improbable. very improbable with 15 votes but it's not
impossible improbable impossible
firstly but secondly Mr. President branch of government. Supreme Court independent
nature and being the sole authority to try and decide impeachment cases. Thank you,
Mr. President. And we'd like to thank uh Senator Marleta for his time. Thank you,
Senator Kino noted and entered into the records. Senator Margaretto. Mr. President,
I thank Senator B for his manifestation [Music] [Applause] article 11 uh section 3.
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 forth with proceed. Mr. President, this cannot be applied in isolation
of SE of paragraph 8. So the same section 3 uh article 11, the Congress shall
promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this
section. Rules of procedures in impeachment proceedings. guidelines before I
proceeded in my speech. The initial proceedings conducted by the Senate of the 19th
Congress were
not formally carried over into the Senate of the 20th Congress. I cannot recall and
there is no action taken by this chamber Mr. President, all these proceedings were
already deemed terminated at the expiration of the 19th Congress at noon of June
30, 2025. and they cannot be miraculously bring forth to life in this congress
where both of us now belong because this congress is of different composition
poific Mr. President um Senator Aino is recognized. Yes, Mr. President my co-
gentleman from Tarlac Senator
Marleta Mr. President my section 4 my section 8 meant to reflect each other or not
framers of theitutional arguments framers of theitution. And Mr. President, if we
are able to uh if we are able to table this matter and allow for these oral
arguments to happen, Mr. President, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. We can
uh continue, Mr. President, with the list of uh senators wanting to interpolate and
make a manifestation. At this juncture, Mr. President, may we recognize the
distinguished gentleman from Isabella
and Davao, uh Senator Rafi Tulfo for his manifestation. So, move Senator Tulfo is
recognized for his manifestation. Thank you, Mr. President. This is not an
interpolation but a short very short manifestation in line with uh what Senator
Piaano said earlier that we can be creative in our motion today and correct me if
I'm wrong if I've heard it right what uh Senator Pangilinan from the minority said
that we are not defying the decision of the Supreme Court. So may I propose that
instead of
dismissal we just dissolve this impeachment court because in the first place per
the decision of the Supreme Court jurisdiction over articles of impeachment we're
still in line with what the Supreme Court said. Thank you Mr. President. Noted and
entered into the records. Mr. Mr. President, next and last but not the least to
interpolate the distinguished gentleman from Tarlac is the lady from Tagig and
Pateros, no other than Senator Piaayana. I move that she be recognized. Mr.
President, Senator Pyakayano is recognized for
interjections andor manifestation. You may proceed, ma'am, if the gentleman will so
allow it. Yes, Mr. President. It's charging. Thank you, Mr. President. With the
permission of the uh proponent, uh Senator Maruetta, I would like to Yes, Mr.
President. make a few observations and then perhaps ask his honor's uh opinion on
these matters please. Thank you. So Mr. President, I'm reading directly from the
case um Duterte versus House of Representatives page 95. It states the subsequent
filing
of the articles of impeachment under article 11 section 34 against vice president
Sarah Z Duterte and it's transmitted by the house of representatives to the senate
of the 19th congress is considered to be a separate and distinct mode of initiating
the impeachment process. The articles of impeachment are declared barred by article
11 section 35 of the constitution. Likewise, they are unconstitutional and are
deemed null and void ab initial. Consequently, the Senate did not acquire
jurisdiction
to constitute itself into an impeachment court. This decision is immediately exe.
It shall be deemed served on petitioner and release upon publication the Supreme
Court website and receipt of the parties of their digital copy in accordance with
AM number 25516 SC or the guidelines on the transition to electronic filing in the
Supreme Court. So I read this into the record, Mr. President, because I'd like to
emphasize a few key phrases. The Senate did not acquire jurisdiction to constitute
itself into an impeachment
court. I'll start with that one and then the second one is this decision is
immediately executo. So the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction to constitute
itself into an impeachment court. And yet the fact remains that we did constitute
ourselves into an impeachment court. Then what are we supposed to do? because the
the Supreme Court tells us that we did not acquire jurisdiction. Uh as as most
lawyers well all lawyers should know uh when uh when the Supreme Court tells uh
another body usually it's uh
the lower court or sometimes it's a government agency and the case was um by by by
the by our accepted rules elevated to the Supreme Court. They tell them you have no
jurisdiction. The only thing you do is um what do they call it? There's a term you
have. You have residual powers and those residual powers basically simply allow you
to dispose of the case as per instructions of the Supreme Court. Is that the
understanding of his honor? Yes, Mr. President. Actually, residual powers apply
also
uh under section 135. I am invoking that because the rules of court are there
legislative department. I I've tried all my life to be a dutiful uh citizen and
Allah knows I'm I was a good daughter, a better daughter than he was a son in terms
of following our father's rules. I am one of five lawyers here in the Senate and
I'm trying to do my job as a senator and as a lawyer. I do not I I am trying to
listen carefully to our colleagues uh who have expressed their desire to um to be
to constitute ourselves as an
impeachment court. But I do not know how we can legally do that when the court when
the Supreme Court tells us it did not we did not acquire jurisdiction to constitute
ourselves into an impe impeachment court. We did not acquire it then and we do not
acquire it now. So how would we do that? How and and those of you who have worked
with me know how you know how hard I work to find a solution. I I bend over
backwards. I I listen. I recraft, redraft everything and of course within the
bounds of the
law. How do we do that? How, Mr. President? I think the good senator already
provided the answer by using the Senate's residual power residual power. This is
immediately executed to raise and thank you for your response um senator from the
senator from Tailac and then with respect to the second phrase that I wanted to
dive into immediately executo. So decision and then I think the Senate President
mentioned it also that um in their press briefing yesterday. Just yesterday uh the
Supreme Court stated that uh to
recall on July 25, 2025, the Supreme Court granted a petition to dismiss the fourth
impeachment complaint against Vice President Duterte in a 1302 decision with the
justices present present voting unanimously and associate Alfred Benjamin Kagwa
inhibiting an associate justice Maria Filmena Singh on leave. The Supreme Court and
Bank ruled that the impeachment complaint was void for violating the one-year ban
and due process requirements. This decision is immediately exeing as a lawyer and a
lawyer in the Senate
to say that they did not intend it to be immediately executive because they said
this knowing that there already was a motion for recon and knowing that we are
going to have this discussion today because we made this date public that on this
day we will have this discussion. So again I'm trying hard to see how other than
disposing of the case using our residual powers following the instructions of the
Supreme Court we can further debate this issue um that is my dilemma dear
colleagues Mr. President
may I offer an answer Mr. President, of course, [Music] [Applause] Madame Senator
[Music] So you know who that will not change my Mr. President, the very tenor of
the decision formality, Mr. President, you are a trial lawyer too. Most of us here
became trial lawyers. This is our experience. 87 Mr. President, I if I may, Mr.
President, and I think that was a good analogy. Thank you for that. Um, I think
what's interesting with his honors analogy is there are people, there's the public,
I
don't know, millions of people would like to understand So in the same way the
chances can I convince you otherwise I think that's what his honor is trying to say
and I think the public really want to know. Uh let the record show Um but but and
we really want to know Whether you want to know the truth [Music] I have to follow
the rules of my father's house. process. So as a lawyer I have to say this we are
governed by law and in as much as bothered bothered. The other day, our colleagues
uh
privilege speech flood control. It should go to the proper process. My process s
halls of the Senate. Um we have um uh hearings in aid of legislation and then
process. So conclusion in as much as the the public deserves to know because we all
deserve to know, we also have to follow the process and um I share this with
everyone. situation Supreme Court in the Senate Congress we have our duties as co-
equal bodies duties agency regional trial court that's our job as a co-equal grave
abuse of discretion. They have to
also say it. They also have to um make their position known which they have. And I
will repeat the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction and this decision is
immediately executo. So I'm happy to listen. I don't know. Um I I shared my my
views on this in the hope But I'm guided also by my uh practice as a lawyer and my
duty as a lawyer uh to also I can disagree with the court. We we know that we have
that personal right to disagree with the court but we also have to in the end um
follow the court's
orders whether we we agree with them or not. Very quickly. Thank you Mr. President.
Mr. With the permission of senators Marcoleta and what is the pleasure of senator
Bangalina? Just a quick interjection. Uh the gentleman may proceed. Maybe to add to
the either the enlightenment or additional bewilderment of uh Senator Pia Kayatanu.
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that uh uh we did not have jurisdiction. Yes, the
Supreme Court ruled that it is immediately execut issue a writ of injunction. So
did not. Sorry, I didn't hear that. It
makes you wonder why did not enjoin us. Did not issue a writ uh it could have but
it did not. So yeah, your guess is as good as mine because uh if they really wanted
us to uh to uh end this then why didn't they uh enjoin us? Just to add to the
bewilderment and the um enlightenment, what is there to enjoin when we never
acquired jurisdiction according to them? Um what is the pleasure of the honorable
Thank you, Mr. President. discussion uh precisely the regarding the uh immediately
execut the ruling final and even if the ruling
states that it is immediately execut even if the ruling states that it is
immediately exeu the court itself the court itself in many cases has explained that
this does not mean selfexe immediately exeutor does not mean selfexe section one
senator Pangilinan section 1 rule 39 of the 2019 rules of court states that
execution shall issue as a matter of right on motion. This means that a writ of
execution issued upon a motion is necessary for the execution of a decision at at
this point Mr. President.
And secondly uh at this point um Mr. President, first group of complainants, House
of Representatives, Solicitor General Supreme Court ruling entity, mass media, ABS,
CBN ano ABS CBN news statement on articles cited in the Supreme Court decision on
Vice President Sarah Duterte's impeachment make of record. Mr. President Sabi ABS
CBN News respectfully clarifies that the article cited in the Supreme Court
decision on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte did not did not state
that the House of Representatives
transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate without a plenary vote. The
ABS CBN statement, Mr. president calls into question the factual premises of the SC
decision numerous uh factual errors. If the very factual premises were wrong, the
legal conclusion cannot be relied upon. With due respect, salam to Mr. President,
Majority of Law leader, yes, Mr. President, last but not the least is a quick
manifestation from the distinguished gentleman from Palawan, Senator Irwin Tulfo. I
move that he be
recognized. Mr. President, Senator Irwin Tulfo is recognized. You may proceed, sir,
if the gentleman will so yield. Yes, Mr. President. Motion to dismiss. Motion to
table. Motion to archive. Are we actually going to vote later or the motion to
table by the distinguished minority floor leader which has preceded over the
earlier motion of Senator Marleta supposedly to dismiss but that he acceeded to
amend it accordingly and he will state the motion before we put it to a vote after
we dispose of the
motion of the minority floor leader to table. With that, Mr. President, I uh and no
member wishes to interpolate the uh the uh minority leader is also seeking the
floor. I move that leader is recognized. What is your pleasure, sir? Thank you, Mr.
President. Uh just one last push, so to speak. The gentleman may proceed. the we're
we are not saying that we defy the Supreme Court decision. We're simply saying
wait, patience is a virtue. Um analogy although Mr. President in a basketball game.
Crucial finals. World Championship. review. It's as simple as that. So why not uh
listen to the possibility of uh not dismissing but not uh accepting the table and
then we can bring it out anytime. Um again, Supreme Court has never considered a
unanimous. It has and the Supreme Court also spoke the the the immediately executed
final until the lapse of the prescribed period without a so and so and so. Supreme
Court Hopefully um speculation stating that the Supreme Court will not reverse its
unanimous decision is also
speculative. So Mr. President Supreme Court decision obviously. So you cannot write
a wrong by another wrong. Thank you Mr. President. Noted Senator Allen. Mr.
President, Mr. President, uh, Mr. President. Yes, Mr. President. I So, I'm
discussing with the minority leader trying to pursue a wording that will articulate
our collective uh, intent of the Senate. May May I just mention and and um have a
few maybe two minutes uh with what uh Senator Risa the the esteemed senator said
once very clear esteemed I I do recognize our
um uh the former chairman of the COML who if he did not uh qualify me I would not
have become a counselor. Uh Christian Monsod, our esteemed uh legal luminaries are
here po in all the books oneear impeachable officer all throughout the year. So one
year February 6. When is the soonest that the Supreme Court can decide? the next 15
30 days by September 1 budget hearing house by late September Senate Deputy
Impeachment. legislation at least until February 6. So which I I want to give honor
and thank
the minority leader appeal. So whether or not the Senate says Supreme Court appeal,
would it be acceptable both to Senator Marcoa and Senator and to the minority? What
if we were the motion that uh we move to adhere to the decision of the Supreme
Court in period merely adhering decision void abinio and executo right away. So I
don't know if that's acceptable. I'm trying to think of a word adhere um uh even
obey misinterpret because some of us say choice to obey some thinks but adhere
might be a a good word.
Senator Marleta would are we getting closer or I think Mr. President, we're getting
uh closer uh except that we should uh put some operative words there that would uh
indicate the closure of this very issue. Uh Mr. President, what if it's uh we move
to uh for the Senate to to adhere to the Senate uh to the Supreme Court decision in
Duterte versus uh House of Representatives and Herbart terminate whatever uh unless
or until certain time now do Mr. President may I ask the the good sponsor
is it can we mention the appeal? I don't think so, Mr. President. I think we we can
only because it's immediately execut I think in obedience to the decision of the
Supreme Court, the Senate adheres to it and put to rest. Let let me put it another
way, Mr. President. If a motion is approved to act upon the decision and to adhere
to the decision, am I correct, Mr. president that um that will be the decision that
will be in our journal and then by operation of uh administrative uh process in the
Senate
everything that has to do with the impeachment will be sent to the archives. That
is correct. That is the um yeah I administrative procedure that will logically
follow. I yield to the co my colleagues Mr. President, I'm just trying to come up
with a consensus. Mr. President, I think the operative word today, if we do uh
decide to act on the matters to archive as the proceedings with uh former Budsman
Gutierrez and former Chief Justice Davidid, my question is former President
Estrada, former president Estrada, my apologies.
Today, one of our Senate resolutions was archived. This is PS number resolution
number 35. And um it's really simple, a simple amendment to the rules. But my
question, Mr. President, is nothing can stop us from pulling it out of the archives
and taking it over once again in plenary. Is that correct, Mr. President? That is
that is correct, your honor. Besides, although the Supreme Court said that the
Senate never acquired jurisdiction and that the articles of impeachment are void,
null and void
abinish from the beginning, we cannot deny the fact that the articles of
impeachment were in fact sent to the Senate that the Senate convened and sent out
certain orders and summons and these are all part of the records. So it's but
natural although it was declared unconstitutional and that the Senate never
acquired jurisdiction for us to still include that as part of the records of the
Senate because it is part of the Senate's history. Yes. And proceeded tells us that
we have done so in the past.
That is correct your honor. So would it be proper to say that um it will be
archived without prejudice to the decision from the uh the final decision of the
Supreme Court from the motion for reconsideration. I mean it's the same thing
without prejudice. We do that with the bills. We approve it on second reading
without prejudice. But each and every one of us here questioning second reading
approval they have three days in act in which we can act upon it. Well, your honor,
whether you state that or
not, we can bring it out of the archives by a majority um vote anyway. So, it's at
the pleasure it's with the pleasure of the body if it if the body will agree to
include that phrase or not. But um in relation to Senator Kayatano's suggestion, um
Senator Marleta, if we simply vote in your case, not the motion to table to adhere
once that decision becomes final, meaning to say after the lapse of the period, for
a member who voted with the winning side on the winning side to seek a
reconsideration, the natural effect
without being included in your motion today would be to archive it and by virtue of
the manifestation of Senator former Senate President Zubiri if circumstances change
um nothing prevents the body peny from making the corresponding motion putting it
to a vote and um reflect the change in circumstances if any that will be acceptable
Mr. President thank you honor Senator Mr. president. Um, somehow parallel to what
you're discussing, perhaps you could consider no and I I would like to call the
attention of the
original proponent of this um position, Senator Kaitano, Senator Alan Kaitano, who
was former speaker of the house to adhere to the Supreme Court decision upon its
final disposition. In meantime, table or archive upon whatever your pleasure would
be. At least upon its final disposition, may motion for reconsideration. We're
still giving that that chance of a motion for reconsideration. If I may, your
honor, um if you will, um indulge me. Um, if I may state the um working motion to
adhere to the July 25,
2025 decision of the Supreme Court declaring the articles of impeachment null and
void abiniso um and that the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction um over the same.
Um, we can stop there and then as I said after the vote becomes final on Monday or
Tuesday if no one will seek a reconsideration to archive it. If nobody if there is
no change then it remains in the archives and nothing needs to be done. If the
Supreme Court reverses itself however um possible or impossible that may be then um
we will entertain a motion to bring
it out of the archives. um bring it out of the archives and act accordingly again
in obedience to the Supreme Court decision. So um Mr. President, when we say that
the Senate has not acquired jurisdiction, President you convinced Supreme Court
that you never acquired jurisdiction. February 5, 4:15 p.m. the Senate President's
office and the Senate Secretary received the articles of impeachment. I'm sorry.
I'm sorry. Um, minority leader. um legally when you say it never the Senate never
acquired jurisdiction, it does not deny the fact that we convene. Um that is a
totally different matter. It says that since the articles of impeachment violated
the one-year ban that we never supposedly acquired jurisdiction, not that we never
did when it was not yet barred by the Supreme Court. That factual situation still
exists and is part of our records. As I said, that's why the better alternative is
to archive it because it was part of what actually happened, transpired, and it's
part of
the Senate Senate's history. But having said that, without delivering the point, um
if agreement cannot be reached, then we can proceed to um dispose of the um motion
of Senator Sto, our distinguished minority floor leader, to lay the motion of
Senator Marco on the table. And um depending on the outcome of that vote um it
should it not be favorable to the movement then we proceed to act on the motion of
senator Marcoleta. If it is favorable to the movement the distinguished minority
for leader then
there is no need to proceed with the motion of senator Marceta. Senator Lon Mr.
President we have to determine first if senator Marcoa has legal standing in filing
his motion to dismiss. He will amend this motion later. We will first decide on the
motion. So there's amendment to the motion. Yes. And then uh let's hear his motion.
Your honor, president. Mr. President, uh the uh lady from Antique is seeking the
floor. I move that he began recognized. Was it your pleasure, ma'am? Thank you, Mr.
President. It's been
three hours and a half um with the uh very enlightening discussions. So I just
wanted to clarify and actually may I convey that there is a sliver of a difference
between the two motions. So I wanted to be clarified. The original motion to
dismiss I believe has been amended based on the discussions to the motion to
archive. Yes. And the motion to archive in my understanding based on all the
explanations would be without prejudice to the reopening of the possibility after
the Supreme Court conveys its ruling on the motion for
reconsideration. And therefore in the possibility If of the event that it reverses
itself, then we would act accordingly. That is very good. On the other hand, there
is a motion which takes precedence and that has been the motion of the minority
leader to lay on the table the motion. But when you see and interpret the amended
motion of uh the original movement, Senator Marcoleta and the minority leaders
motion, it's similar because it lays on the table or it somehow uh just postpones
indefinitely until such time
that the Supreme Court has uh decided on the motion for reconsideration. Is there
any possibility that we can agree so that uh we can amend it so that the body can
actually vote as one because we will we are not putting it to a permanent halt
because we will be waiting anyway for the motion for reconsideration uh by the
Supreme Court. Yes, Mr. President, the ruling on that. May I have one minute to
explain the difference? I know that there is let let me state I know there is a
difference. I was just
trying to bridge the difference so that there could not there is no need for a
painful vote. Yes. I I will just explain the difference so that we know Senator
Cayano is recognized with the permission of Senator. Thank you Mr. President. The
reason why I want to explain the difference. Yes. Okay. Because when you laid it on
the table immediately executo on the table immediately now dismiss because uh even
I question we're going to dismiss jurisdiction although there's a Supreme Court uh
ruling saying
it dismissed. So the proposal which is accepted by Senator Marcetta is that um we
adhere to the decision and then archive it. So a natural effect immediately executo
we cannot say you you only have two choices do you follow the Supreme Court or you
don't follow. You cannot say malito. So that's the I think that's the level of uh
disagreement. Uh okay. I I take note of that and uh I was trying to have a
unanimous vote and trying to bridge uh the two motions which uh based on rule 31
there is
actually no motion to archive but actually every day we archive uh in our referral.
So because of that practice then that motion is therefore acceptable. Um having
said that Mr. President, let me just summarize what we are voting on. We're
actually and I will just say it the very very short dispositive portion of the
Supreme Court decision and this is the artic and I quote it the articles of
impeachment are declared barred by article 11 section 3 paragraph 5 of the
constitution. Likewise they are unconstitutional and
are deemed null and void ab initial. Consequently, the Senate did not acquire
jurisdiction to constitute itself into an impeachment court and this decision is
immediately exemp. I just wanted to summarize what we've been discussing for three
hours and a half. And while my uh attempt to bridge the two similarly worded
motions did not succeed, then we will therefore have to uh put it into a vote.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I think we we heard enough and
uh I think it's about time that we dispose
the uh the motion of our distinguished minority leader to lay this on the table. Uh
Mr. President, so I move for the previous Mr. President. Mr. President, Senator
Aino is uh seeking the floor. What is the parliamentary inquiry of Senator Aino?
Mr. President, may I get um earlier Senator Cayatano talked about the differences
between a motion to table and motion to archive. May I get an official um response?
Mr. President, is that really the difference? Your honor, we have not yet heard the
motion of Senator Marcetta.
No, Mr. President, a motion to archive and a motion to table. For us lay men, it
sounds similar. Mr. President, an Mr. President Senator what Senator Rosto that's
why we I prefer that we act on the motion what Senator Rosoto is seeking to table
is not the articles of impeachment nor the impeachment case but the motion of
Senator Margolleta which we haven't heard okay so um when we decide on the motion
to table the motion of Senator Marguleta not the articles of impeachment yes and
the motion to archive are the
articles of impeachment Mr. President thank you Mr. President Senator, my motion to
table was to table the motion of Senator Marleta. That's exactly what I said, your
honor. Yes, that's exactly what I said. That is that the motion of the motion to
table pertains to the motion of Senator Marleta to dismiss, not the articles of
impeachment. The articles the motion of Senator Maruetta, if at all, would pertain
to the articles of impeachment and or the impeachment case. Yes. And and if I may
add, if I may add,
Mr. President, Senator Pangan. Well, the motion to archive uh Senator Palinan,
we're not yet there. Well, okay. The motion, no, the motion to table uh the motion
then uh frees us from the debate of whether or not uh we have the power uh as a
Senate in plenary to address the impeachment complaint. The chair said that
earlier. Yes. And therefore we will first put to a vote the motion to table of our
distinguished minority floor leader which under our rules has preceded over the
motion of Senator
Marcoleta although made earlier. Depending on the outcome of that vote then we will
um act on the motion of Senator Marcoa accordingly. Senator Estrada. Mr. President,
you have been listening to all the manifestations of almost all senators who stood
up. Mr. President, it has been 4 hours listening to uh several manifestations of
our colleagues and it it is about time that we decide right away the pending
motions before us. Mr. President, the Filipino people are watching. The Filipino
people are listening. The Senate has to act and
the Senate has to act decisively. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr.
President. I move for the previous uh motion, Mr. President, on the motion of uh
the minority leader, Senator Tito Sto, to lay on the table the motion of Senator uh
Rodante Marco. Is there any objection to the motion of the majority leader for the
Senate? What is the pleasure of the minority floor leader? Mr. President, I move
for a nominal vote. The chair has every intention of doing that. Your honor, um
there is a motion
to um vote on the motion of Senator Sto to lay on the table the motion of Senator
Marleta pertaining to the articles of impeachment visav and in light of the Supreme
Court decision of July 25, 2025. to explain a yes, affirmative or I vote supports
the motion of the um honorable minority leader and it therefore means that we will
not act on the motion of Senator Marcoa today. A nay vote, a no vote um means that
um the motion of Senator Marleta will not be laid on the table and that we will act
and vote upon it
today. Senator Laxon later on we'll we'll know the amendment Senator Lon so that uh
it's it's on the record please. So you're only referring Mr. President to the
motion to dismiss. No motion to table. I just the motion to table. Just the motion
to table, your honor, because we are not yet there. There being no objection, the
motion is um of the Yes. Senator Ziri. Yes, Mr. President. Being a former Senate
President and being former majority leader, I'd like to ask the audience to
restrain from commenting or
laughing please. Well, it we are in a for me it's a sacred place. It is in the
August chamber of the Senate that they have decorum. May we ask for decorum from
those who are watching within the plenary. Mr. President, actually they have been
silent for the past three and a half hours. Chair would like to remind um the
people in the gallery to kindly respect the processes and procedures of the Senate
and to avoid any claps, any jeering or comments so that we can proceed with roll
call vote. Yes, with due respect because I heard a
lot of laughing after the poor gentleman from our good friend Senator Laxon asked
only for a clarification of the vote that will happen in a few seconds. The
sergeant of arms is so directed just a proper decorum uh because uh this is a very
important vote and this is a very serious vote that will be taking place. Thank
you. The sergeant-at-arms is so directed to kindly maintain order in the gallery.
Acting now on the motion of the majority leader for us to divide the house and vote
on the motion to lay on the table.
Secretary is directed um to call the role for nominal voting. Roll call vote. The
honorable Senator Aino. Yes. Senator Cayatano Alan, no. Senator Cayatano Pia,
Senator Dear Rosa, Senator Erhersto, Senator Estrada, no. Senator Gachalyan,
Senator Go, Senator Monteveros, yes. Senator Lakon, yes. Senator Lapid, no. Senator
Learda, no. Senator Marcoa. Senator Marcos, Senator Padilia, Senator Pangilinan,
yes. Senator Sto, may I u register my vote, Mr. President? The minority leader may
proceed. Thank you, Mr. President. The Supreme
Court decision is now pending appeal. It is prudent to wait for the results rather
than prematurely archiving if not dismissing because I know for a fact once it is
archived it is dead. So what happens if the Supreme Court reverses itself? Clear
and blatant errors are present in the ruling of the Supreme Court. First, they
misunderstood the legislative process in assuming that the 19th Congress adjourned
Cinedia in February five. Grave error. Thus, effectively dismissing the first three
complaints,
paving the way for them to say one year. The archiving of the three complaints were
done after the initiation of the fourth complaint. The one-year ban did not set in.
Second, the decision practically amended the clear mandate by the constitution by
placing a hierarchy on the modes to initiate an impeachment complaint. you third
option. Third, the Supreme Court retroactively applied the new definition to the
present case in the violation of the doctrine of operative facts, thus voiding as
well the impeachment
proceedings of former President Estrada and Chief Justice Corona. Um they did not
interpret the constitution, Mr. President. They amended the constitution. So
lastly, the Supreme Court now has the chance to rectify these errors in its
decision. So I was hoping to table it to table the motion so that we can afford we
let us afford them this opportunity for the benefit of future impeachment processes
and to uphold the clear mandate of the 1987 constitution. All we needed to do was
wait a little and so I will have to register a yes
vote. I know it will be a vote in the minority but uh I have always voted in the
minority in many issues in the Senate since 1992 up to the present. Always prayed I
was wrong. Unfortunately, I was always right. My God have mercy on your decision. I
vote yes. Noted. Secretary will please continue. Senator Tulfo Irwin. Senator Tulfo
Rafi. Senator Villain Noeva. No. Senator Villar Camille. No. Senator Villar Mart.
Senator Zubiri. Senate President Escada. No. Explain before before the explanations
of vote,
chair would first like to um make of record the result. With five affirmative
votes, 19 negative votes, the motion to table the motion of Senator Marcoa is lost.
lost asoto. Sorry, Senator Sto is lost. No, he said the motion to table the motion
of Senator Margolleta is lost. Mr. President, if I may, Mr. president and uh to uh
go back to the uh first motion uh raised by Senator Marcoa. If I may be allowed,
Mr. President, to uh to amend, Mr. President, the motion, Mr. President, the
gentleman may proceed with the
permission of Senator Marleta. Mr. President adhering to the immediately executoy
decision rendered by the Supreme Court and bank on July on 25 of July 2025 which
held among others the articles of impeachment are null and void ab initial and that
the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the same. I move to transfer the
articles of impeachment in relation to case number 002-201 entitled in the matter
of the impeachment trial of vice president Sara Zimmerman Duterte to the archives.
I so moved Mr. President
um what does Senator Marco say? I accept Mr. President there is a motion as
enunciated by the minority floor leader What is the pleasure of Senator Zubiri?
Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, instead of a viva voce vote on that
motion, may we be allowed to manifest our votes with a short manifestation. Mr.
President, each and every one of us. Yeah. Through nominal voting, Mr. President,
with the permission of the body, of course. No, I thank Senator Sto. Um the u
motion of um Senator Zubiri is to conduct
nominal voting and allow the members to explain their votes after casting their
vote not after everyone has voted. I think that is the tenor of the motion correct
of Senator Ziri. Correct. Amendment Mr. President the majority leader the senator
Marcoa accepted the amendment of the majority leader. So what are we voting on now?
May we now uh the motion as amended by senator. May we hear the motion as amended
please? May the gentleman majority leader kindly once again for the record and
benefit of
our colleagues the motion as duly accepted by Senator Marleta. Thank you Mr.
President. adhering to the immediately executoy decision rendered by the Supreme
Court and bank on 25th July 2025 which held among others that the articles of
impeachment are null and void abinitial and that the Senate did not acquire
jurisdiction over the same. I move to transfer the articles of impeachment in
relation to case number 002201 entitled in the matter of the impeachment trial of
vice president Sara Zimmerman Duterte to the archives. I so
move Mr. President and uh may we register would anyone from the minority or those
opposing the motion would like to make of record their objection before so we can
divide the house. Yes. Yes, Mr. President. Uh I object and ask for a nominal vote.
Thank you. With the understanding, Senator Sto, um that it is in accordance with
the request of Senator Zubiri that upon the name is called um the explanation of
vote may be made should they so desire. There is a motion Julie objected to um as
stated by the minority floor leader
to place into the to transfer to the archives the um impeachment articles of
impeachment in relation to the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sarah
Duterte. Um secretary is directed to um call the role and proceed to voting. Roll
call vote. The honorable senator Aino Senator Kayatano Alan. Mr. President,
preamble Philippine Constitution, we the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the
aid of Almighty God in order to build a just and humane society and establish a
government that shall embody our ideals
and aspirations. Promote the common. promote the common good, conserve and develop
our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessing of
independence and democracy under the rule of law, a regime of truth, justice,
freedom, love, equality, peace do ordain and promulgate this constitution.
President Vice President Sarah Duterte. Will I have the courage to follow the same
decision? That is the test I apply to myself today. Supreme Court decision house to
initiate impeachment February
6. In fact before February 6. I hope I hope corruption smuggling not only this
administration last administration 10 administrations we in this room are all for
accountability but supreme courton processor Jeremiah 29:11 tells us for I know the
plans I have for you, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you
hope and a future. So I remember this episode. I think it was in Twilight Zone and
it was also many many times portrayed on television. What if Hitler when he was 6
years old or when
he was a baby? I think even s psychology or philosophy classes professors what if
you had that unique opportunity six years old. Of course, for us who believe that
thou shalt not murder sagot mad. But what if you could have prevented the worst
human rights violations in the world, the Holocaust? What if you could have
prevented such uh such fire of fascism that it actually swept Time magazine of the
year s Hitler? I I wonder what our answer is. But I know my answer here today. If
you kill Hitler when you are six years old, if
you justify the ends by the means, you will create more Hitlers. So if the vice
president is guilty, Mr. President discussion since February 5t. Lastly, Mr.
President, may I make an appeal to the media, our friends, the vloggers, political
analyst, advocate, school deans, etc. We all agree on a regime of truth, bloggers,
fake news. Political analyst analyst provides objective nonpartisant datadriven
explanation of political events, systems and trends. Advocate champions a specific
cause, policy or interest group to influence
public opinion and policy decisions in favor of their positions. itical analyst
Judge Move to dismiss motion for dis to dismiss. Judges dismisses cases because of
no jurisdiction. So natural senator dismissed dismissed dismissed manifestation. My
point Mr. president is that if it's an eye for an eye, the whole world will go
blind. Let's make our stand. opinion civil society. Are we not overstepping and are
we not confusing rather than enlightening our political processes? Yes, you might
think this is a different
Alan Kaitano from the impeachment of President Estrada, impeachment of President
Aoyo, impeachment of uh impeachment CJavid s impeachment CJ Corona. But aren't we
supposed to be wiser? Supreme Court Vice President. I apologize if I'm emotional on
this issue, but Thank you dear dear colleagues and thank you to Filipino people for
the opportunity to share my thoughts on this. So I vote for the motion of Senator
Marcoa. Secretary will proceed. Senator Cayatano Pia I vote yes, Mr. President, and
I will
explain my vote. The lady may proceed. Thank you. Why are we here today? Why do I
have to cast my vote? It is because a group of citizens, including the members of
the House of Representatives, exercise the right to impeach an impeachable officer.
Under the Constitution, there are two ways to file a verified complaint for
impeachment. Article 11, section 32 by any member of the House of Representatives
or by any citizen and article 11 section 34 by one one-third of all members of the
House of Representatives upon a verified
complaint or resolution. There were four impeachment complaints filed December 2,
December 4, the third on December 19th, and the fourth complaint was endorsed by
215 members of the House on February 5, the last day. On February 18, 2025, Vice
President Sarah Duterte filed a case with the Supreme Court to question procedural
and substantive due process. Her arguments, the House of Representatives
circumvented the constitutional one-year ban rule on initiating impeachment
proceedings. I won't go into the details, Mr.
President, but I will uh submit my my full uh speech into the record. Vice
President Sarah's prayer was for the Supreme Court to issue a TTRO as well as a
writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin all respondents from proceeding with the
impeachment trial. After proper proceedings, issue a final injunction, nullify and
set aside the fourth impeachment complaint. Declare the one-year bar to be
applicable from the filing of the first impeachment complaint. Declare the fourth
impeachment complaint to be violative of
the one-year bar under section 35, article 11 of the constitution. prayer vice
president impeachment proceedings. In the comments of the H they argue the
complaint is not bored for the following reasons. None of the first three
impeachment complaints were referred to the House of House committee on justice
which effectively ended the initiation process and two petitioner Dutertes is
stopped from questioning the freezing of the first three impeachment complaints for
not immediately assailing it.
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said the articles of impeachment transmitted by
the HO to the Senate based on the fourth impeachment complaint is barred by the
one-year rule under article 11 section 35. It is also constitutionally infirm and
therefore null and void proceeding impeachment complaint one year rulement.
complain and void provisions. So in final Supreme Court, the Senate did not acquire
jurisdiction to constitute itself as an impeachment court. And this decision is
immediately exemmed
Immediately exeuto. Notwithstanding the filing of a motion for reconsideration by
the House, the Supreme Court's decision is immediately exe will not state the
decision. Ina press briefing Supreme Court after file motion for reconsideration
House of Representatives immediately executial powers. The Constitution expressly
grants judicial power to our Supreme Court. Article 8, section one of the
constitution provides the judicial power includes the ter the determination of
whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of government. any branch abuse branch of government in
Francisco versus House of Representatives. The Supreme Court ruled that and the
judiciary in turn with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter effectively checks
the other departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law and hence
to declare executive and legislative acts void if violative of the constitution. So
possible executive act legislative act
void in case of conflict. The judicial department is the only constitutional organ
which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the
several departments and among the integral or constituent units thereof. The House
of Representatives urged the Supreme Court to exercise judicial restraint Supreme
Court so that you can avoid encroaching upon the powers of the legislature and
violating the principle of separation of powers. However, the Supreme Court in
Duterte versus Href held that there is a
clear and demonstrable textual commitment in the constitution for the court to act
on any grave abuse of discretion of any branch or instrumentality of government.
This includes the House of Representatives or the Senate in their exercise of their
prerogatives with respect to the process of impeachment. Grave abuse of discretion
from the provision does not mean actions without jurisdiction. It includes acts
which originally may have been within their discretion but subsequently the subject
of a violation
of a constitutional right. This is what is meant by excess of jurisdiction. This
court does not decide whether and when to initiate a case of impeachment. However,
the court has the power to decide how the provisions which limit the exercise are
the exercise are to be interpreted on due process. Numerous Supreme Court decisions
expound on procedural due process in various context. These cases underscore the
Supreme Court's enduring commitment to uphold procedural due process as a safeguard
against arbitrary
government action. due process exists. based on the decision. In order to proceed
with the impeachment proceedings, the House prosecutors must show not only a valid
ground thereof, but also that procedural due process has properly been observed as
this safeguards individuals from the arbitrary exercise of government power by
requiring adherence to fair procedures. As such, when there is a violation of due
process as enshrined under the Constitution, the case must be dismissed. In Latin,
void initial means void from
the beginning. Void. It indicates that something was never valid or legally
effective from its inception rather than becoming invalid at a later point in time.
So, invalid. invalid later on. Invalid absolutely nonexistence from the very
beginning in null and void. It produces no rights, imposes no duties and affords no
protection. It has no legal effect. It is in legal contemplation inoperative as if
it has not been passed. As such, it cannot justify an official act taken under it.
decision. It cannot justify an official
act taken under it. Supreme Court immediately executed the Senate did not acquire
jurisdiction to convene itself as an impeachment court. As such, there is no
constitutional authority to even convene as an impeachment court. I am a member of
the Senate and I am a lawyer. I am bound by my solemn oath last week. I will well
and faithfully discharge to the best of my ability the duties of my position. Do I
want to be a judge here? I hate being a judge. But this is my solemn duty. It is my
duty. I took an oath and therefore
I have to make a decision and Supreme Court lawyer's oath. I do solemnly swear that
I accept the honor, the privilege, duty, and responsibility of practicing law in
the Philippines as an officer of the court in the interest of our people. I declare
feelalty to the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. My duty as a
senator and as a lawyer is to be guided by evidence, by the rule of law, and by the
principles enshrined in our constitution. For these reasons, Mr. President, I cast
my vote as yes. Thank you.
Thank you, uh, Senator Pia Kaitano. Secretary Senator Dele Rosa. Senator uh Ronald
Bau de la Rosa is recognized. Mr. President, I vote yes to the motion of Senator
Marita. And may I be allowed to explain my vote? Thank you, Mr. President. Last
June 10, a day before the 19th Congress adjourned Cine, I stood on the same spot
conveying my serious concerns on the constitutional infirmities surrounding the
articles of impeachment that the 19th Congress of the House of Representatives
transmitted to the Senate. I pointed out that the
circumstance circumstances surrounding the filing of articles of impeachment seem
to violate the one-year bar rule enshrined in article 11 section 3 paragraph 5 of
the constitution among others giving this given this patent violation of the
constitution I made a motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment against vice
president Sarah Duterte. After a long discussion with the members of this chamber
of the 19th Congress, I listened and I learned. My motion for dismissal was amended
by Senator Alan
Kaitano and became a motion to remand. The impeachment court then ordered the
remanding of the articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives. This
chamber also requires the 28th Congress House of Representatives to communicate
whether or not they are willing and ready to pursue the impeachment complaint, a
requirement which until now has not been complied with. In a sudden shift of events
before the opening of the 28th Congress, the Supreme Court took all by surprise
when it promuggated
their decision on petitions challenging the validity of the articles of impeachment
against Vice President Duterte. When the Supreme Court released their decision to
the media, many people expressed their views. There are those who celebrated and
commended the Supreme Court. Others voice out their disappointments. Some criticize
the decision. The mixed reaction seemed to suggest that the decision promuggated
lacks clarity. And yet, Mr. President, after reading the decision, I asked myself.
Is it
long? Yes. 97 pages to be exact. Is it vague? No, Mr. President, it is clear as
day. According to the plain meaning rule or verbal alleges, if the statute is
clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and
applied without interpretation. Now, even though the decision of the Supreme Court
is not a statute, it still forms part of the legal system of the Philippines as
mandated by article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Since the decision of
the Supreme Court is
clear, plain and free from ambiguity, applying the plain meaning rule, it should be
given its literal meaning. That is, the articles of impeachment are
unconstitutional. The Senate did not acquire jurisdiction and the decision is
immediately executo, plain and simple. [Applause] Supreme Court. I honestly do not
place myself in a position so high, too high that I will be the one to be asked if
I will obey the Supreme Court's ruling immediately execript or PS subject to your
review and further
evaluation. As a member of the Senate and as a citizen of this republic, I submit
to the authority of the Supreme Court and respect its decision. Perhaps in shedding
light on the highest court's duty, the integrated bar of the Philippines said it
best, and I quote, "As the final arbiter of constitutional questions, the Supreme
Court bears the solemn duty to interpret the law, determine its bounds, and clarify
its implications. Even when it revisits past doctrines or addresses new context,
this authority is
rooted in checks and balances. The very design that guards against the existence of
any branch. Mr. President, the rule of law is the foundation of our democracy. And
if we are to be models of upholding the law, then it behooves us to listen and heed
those who have been tasked by the constitution to interpret the constitution. The
interpretation of the law remains large with the Supreme Court and we must abide by
its decision. What message would we send out to our people if we legislators will
not honor the wisdom of
the highest court in the land? Are we not in effect promoting anarchy? I want to
believe that indeed we are men and women of the law that we live by rules and
perform our mandate as elected officials within lawful means. Our people rest easy
and feel a sense of security because their Senate has remained to be guardians of
democracy. Looking back, the Senate has accepted several Supreme Court decisions in
the past. Why should the ruling in this current impeachment case be any different?
Is our concept of respect for the accept
respect for and acceptance of Supreme Court decision selective? If that is the
case, are we not playing with fire? Fire, mind you, does not always intend to
enlighten or illuminate. It can also burn and bring a house down. Much has been
said about where I stand, and I understand that my positions on certain matters
have always been consistent and transparent. But while the public and this chamber
may be familiar with my views, all that is simply driven by what is in my heart.
And I say this with
humility. My heart has always been guided by what is right. Not only when it is
easy, not only when it is convenient, but even and especially when it challenges my
comfort zone. when it no longer serves our side because at the end of the day it is
a matter of principle not popularity. Perhaps sometimes we ought to protect our
democracy even from ourselves. Of course the Senate is not a mere follower of the
Supreme Court but a co-equal branch meant to respect the powers and functions of
the latter in
its decisions. I trust that the Senate will continue to peacefully coexist with the
Supreme Court. Let us not allow this impeachment trial to become a venue and
opportunity to disrupt our system of government. I hope this is not the time when
we dance differently when clearly the same song is playing. We must follow the
Supreme Court ruling not because it is the most convenient thing to do, but because
it is what is right and just, no matter how unacceptable or painful it may be. And
this is why, Mr. President,
I vote yes to adhering to the Supreme Court decision. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you, uh, Senator Del Rosa, Mr. Secretary. Senator Hersito. Senator Hersito is
recognized. Yes, Mr. President. I likewise vote yes to adhere to the subport. Thank
you. Uh Senator Hersto, Secretary Senator Estrada. Senate President Senate
President Escodel. The Senate President is recognized to explain his vote. Thank
you, Mr. President. Distinguished colleagues. For many of us, the past two weeks
have proven to be an exasperating, mentally,
and emotionally exhausting experience. Both sides have fought bitterly a
dialectical struggle to articulate what they respectively believe to be the correct
position or view on the issues involved. Passions had run high as demonstrators
whether for or against impeachment took to the streets armed with their familiar
slogans and chants to air their voice on the matter. Various sectors of society
from business, retired military, academ denominations of faith offered suggestions
for a return to a state of
normaly in the official relations of governmental branches. Through all these and
as early as the time when the articles of impeachment had been constituted, the
court was specifically asked, told, urged and argued to take no action of any kind
and form with respect to the prosecution by the House of Representatives of the
impeachment complaint. When the present petitions were knocking, so to speak, at
the doorsteps of the court, the same clamor for non-inference was made through what
are now arguments of lack
of jurisdiction, non-justicitiability, and judicial self-restraint aimed at halting
the court from any move that may have a bearing on the impeachment proceedings. The
court did not heed the call to adopt a hands-off stance as far as the question of
constitutionality of initiating the impeachment complaint is concerned. What lies
here, what lies in here rather is an issue of genuine constitutional material which
only the court can properly and competently address and adjudicate in accordance
with clear-cut allocation of powers
under our system. The claim therefore that the court by judicially entangling
itself with the process of impeachment has effectively set up a regime of judicial
supremacy is patently without basis in fact and in law because it is not at all the
business of the court to assert dominance judicial dominance over the other two
great branches of government. Rather the ron dre the judiciary is to complement the
discharge by the executive and legislative of their own powers to bring about
ultimately the beneficient effects of
having founded and ordered our society upon the rule of law. Mr. President,
distinguished colleagues, the institution that is the Supreme Court, together with
all other courts has long held and been entrusted with the judicial power to
resolve conflicting legal rights regardless of the personalities involved in their
suits or actions. The court has dispensed justice over the course of time,
unaffected by whomsoever stood to benefit or suffer there from, unafraid by
whatever imputations or speculations
could be made to it, so long as it rendered judgment according to the law and the
facts. No one is above the law or the constitution. This is a basic precept in any
legal system which recognizes equality of all men before the law as essential to
the law's moral authority and that of his agents to secure respect for for and
obedience to its commands. Perhaps there is no other government branch or
instrumentality that is most zealous in protecting that principle of legal equality
other than the Supreme Court which has discerned in
its meaning and ramifications through its application of numerous cases especially
the high-profile kind in the annals of juristprudence. The Filipino nation and its
democratic institutions have no doubt been put to a test once again by this
impeachment case. Accordingly, this court resort the court resorted to no other
than the constitution in search for a solution to what many feared would ripen to a
crisis in government. Justice Carpio Morales, San Francisco ruling. Francisco,
Chief Justice.
Franciscoice corruption. [Music] Initiation of impeachment prerogative. Today, Mr.
President, distinguished colleagues, the very supremacy of the Supreme Court is
being called into question and with it the very foundation of the rule of law. As
Senate President and as a member of this chamber and as a member of the bar, I will
not sit idly by and allow this. At stake is the very idea that justice should be
governed by laws that apply to all equally to all rather than the whims and
caprices of public opinion. As Justice Frankfurter
once said, if one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every
man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny. Legal process is an essential part
of democratic process. Whether it's a mob or a minority, bias and prejudice blinds,
divides, and destroys. Former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra de O' Connor also
said it best. The law provides necessary continuity amidst our constantly shifting
political landscape. It guarantees everyone will be treated equally whether they
are in today's or
yesterday's majority. So they know what to expect whether what they do is popular
or unpopular at that time. The courts, Mr. President, with the Supreme Court at the
helm are the guardians of the rule of law, making sure everyone plays by the same
rules and receives equal justice. For the rule of law to prevail, the high court
must act as a compass, not as a political cheerleader, impartially applying the law
by calling out violations, not swayed by public opinion or political allegiance.
Respect
for the rule of law, Mr. President requires all of us to adhere to final or
immediately executive decisions of the court even when there is a winner and a
loser to avoid deadlocks and maintain legal order. Respect for the rule of law does
not bar disagreeing with court decisions nor from forming our own opinions on the
meaning and intent and letter of the spirit of the constitution. However, we must
also have the humility to accept when we are wrong once the Supreme Court has
already decided. Respecting the court only when you win
or when it aligns with your belief is not respect for me. It is plain arrogance or
if at all a power play. Cherry-picking court court rulings destroys the judiciary's
purpose. Disobeying the high court's decision is a violation of the law because
under our constitution decisions of the of the Supreme Court form part of the law
of the land. I made these remarks, Mr. President, amidst recent calls for this
August body to disregard the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Duterte Vh. These
calls for judicial disobedience
have been aided and abetted by so-called legal luminaries and experts who fancy
their wisdom and knowledge of the constitution as better, higher, more supreme than
that of the Supreme Court. Supremist Courtreme Courtitution. Allow me to
demonstrate, for example, Mr. President, the legal gymnastics these people have
been undertaking in the past and have borne the brunt of this despite the rulings
of the Supreme Court that say it is within a reasonable time immediately. Mr.
Speaker, immediately I take
a motion for reconsideration [Music] July 25, 2025 In the past it was also Senator
Motion foration. Now the prosecution has actually filed a motion for for
reconsideration and rightfully so and not by this chamber. Impeachment personally.
Will of the people Alejandro Manuel first year law students quote The judiciary
under its powers to interpret the constitution and the laws has the duty and the
right to declare what the will of the people is as expressed in the fundamental law
of the land. Hence where the acts of the
executive or legislative departments violate the will of the people as expressed in
the organic law of the land. It is the sworn duty of the judiciary to interpret and
to declare that will of the people and the right of the citizen has been violated
and or transgressed. Allow me to answer a few more. Mr. President, your honor, as I
stated earlier, motion for consideration. immediately execut number 10-4-20 Supreme
Court resolution entry of judgment immediately. Section 4 rule 39 rules of court
immediately executive
fact doctrine. Operative fact doctrine exception rule null and void. exception
League of Cities versus Com. The invocation of the operative fact doctrine is an
admission that the law or act is unconstitutional. decision justice. It will open
the floodgates to wanton enactment of unconstitutional laws and the commission of
unconstitutional acts and a mad rush for their immediate implementation before the
court can declare them unconstitutional. This view according to him is an open
invitation to serially violate the
constitution and be quick about it lest the violation be stopped by the court.
Justice Scarpio. Those who acted in bad faith with gross negligence cannot invoke
this doctrine. He who comes to equity must come with clean hands and he who seeks
equity must likewise do equity. Mr. President, distinguished colleagues impeachment
complaint speakerc Mr. President, your honors, they should read Francisco again.
They forgot that lack of due process in the impeachment process had been raised and
in fact was
specifically mentioned in the separate concurring opinions and allow me to quote
the concurring opinion of justice. The due process clause enshrined in our
fundamental law is a condition synon that cannot be ignored in any proceeding
administrative judicial or otherwise. It is deemed written into every law, rule or
contract, even though not expressly stated therein. Hence, the House rules on
impeachment in so far as they do not provide the charged official with number one
notice and number two opportunity to
be heard prior to being impeached are also unconstitutional. Needless to say, the
due process limitation on impeachment process was already discussed in Francisco.
legal luminary particular speaker. When the court begins to create rules on how it
and other high officials may be impeached, it risks writing the terms of its own
immunity. This point was also discussed in Francisco. Illogically, Mr. President,
the Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, not a system of
retribution.
Threatening the Supreme Court with impeachment simply because one disagrees with
the ruling is a dangerous assault on our constitutional order. The Senate, Mr.
President, stands ready to uphold the integrity of the Constitution as well as the
institutions created under it. My dear colleagues, we are told that to honor the
court's ruling is to betray the truth. That by choosing fidelity to the law, we
somehow abandon accountability. But nothing for me could be further from the truth.
To disregard
the ruling would not only defy the Constitution, it would drag the nation into a
crisis it can ill afford. It would erode the authority of our laws, embolden those
who believe they are above it because they know it all or simply know better. To
those seeking to disregard the Supreme Court's decision, I ask these simple
questions. Mr. President again in light of the Francisco ruling on former Chief
Justice Davidid and it was okay then because they refute they did not want then
Chief Justice Devid to be
impeached. Are you truly for accountability or simply anti-Duterte? Do you tr truly
respect and want to preserve the constitution or you simply hate the vice
president? Are you serving the nation's interest or protecting and pursuing your
own personal ambitions or agenda? Are you fighting for truth or are you simply
after revenge? Do you really want a trial or do you just want a conviction? Do you
really believe that we are wrong or do you simply think and feel entitled and
believe that you are
always right? Remove the name, Mr. President, of the vice president. In this case,
apply the decision of the high court, as Senator Kayano said earlier, to another
impeachable official. Would our positions would your positions be the same? When I
was faced with this situation, Mr. President, I respected the court's decision even
if I disagreed with it. I am still voting to respect that court's decision. As
quoted at the part at the start of my speech, Mr. President, the dispensation of
justice over the course of time
should be unaffected whomsoever stood to benefit or suffer there from. The courts
should be unafraid of whatever imputations or speculations could be made against it
by those disagreeing. I will not cast a vote that says complying with the Supreme
Court ruling is optional. Anyone who will say, "I will respect the Supreme Court
today and condemn it tomorrow," is not showing fidelity to the Constitution. It is
submission to the passions of the day, to the shifting winds of public sentiment
that may or may not be just.
Fidelity to the Constitution, Mr. President, must prevail even when it is
unpopular, inconvenient, or misunderstood. In fact, Mr. President, distinguish his
colleagues, it must prevail, especially when it is unpopular, when it is
inconvenient and misunderstood. Finally, Mr. President, let today's verdict be a
stern and unequivocal warning to anyone who would dare use the Senate for their
personal battering ram to further their personal political ambitions. To the House
of Representatives, I say, do not allow
yourselves to be used for the blind hatred and ambition of you of a few who did
things haphazardly, gravely abused their discretion and violated due process rights
under the constitution as found by the high court itself. In spite of all these,
you expect everyone to roll over in obedience when we did not. You moved hell and
high water to destroy personalities. malign reputations and tarnish institutions.
To these people, I say this. The Senate is not your playground to run after your
political
enemies. We are not an accomplice in any grand scheme. While others may be willing
to play your game, I am not. I will never bow to a mob. I will never cower to the
shrst of voices. Let history, Mr. President record that in this moment which chose
the Constitution which chose the rule of law by defending the integrity of the
Supreme Court and maintaining the system of checks and balances under our
Republican system of government. Let this chamber be remembered not for the
passions we inflamed but for the principles we
upheld. I vote yes to the motion, Mr. President. I vote yes to the rule of law, yes
to the constitution, yes to the supremacy of the Supreme Court in interpreting it.
Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, uh, Senate President. Secretary will please
continue to to call the role. Senator Estrada for nominal voting. Senator Estrada
is recognized. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, esteemed colleagues, more
than 190 years ago, Justice Joseph's story warned that impeachment requires a lofty
sense of
duty, a deep responsibility to future times, as well as to God. His words remind us
that we serve not only the present but generations yet unborn and that our actions
must be anchored in constitutional fidelity and historical consciousness. With that
solemn duty in mind, may I address the decision of our Supreme Court. Mr.
President, the decision of the Supreme Court is very clear that it left no doubt
nor space for any other interpretation. Accordingly, I place on record my position
in adhering to the Supreme
Court's ruling, a decision that declared that the Senate did not acquire
jurisdiction over the impeachment case against Vice President Sarah Duterte because
the complaint transmitted to us was null and void. Mr. President, we must never
forget that the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of our Constitution. It is
not merely one of three co-equal branches. It is the guardian of the rule of law.
If we, the very makers of law, choose to defy its authoritative interpretation,
then we commit an unforgivable assault
on our democratic institutions. And we undoubtedly invite a constitutional crisis,
a breakdown of checks and balances where harchy replaces order and chaos becomes
the norm. Mr. President, let us be clear. No one is above the law. Not the
president, not the vice president, not even the Senate when it sits as an
impeachment court. The constitution is not just an ordinary law. It is the supreme
law of the land. And if we betray and if we betray to serve political passions or
popular sentiment, then we
betray the republic itself. The integrated bar of the Philippines in a statement
said that defying the high court's ruling would in effect erode the very
foundations of the legal order. And I agree with this, Mr. President. At the
expense of sounding like a broken record, I would like to say again that the
Supreme Court is the final interpreter of our Constitution. Impeachment.
interpretment. House of Representatives. Fore impeachment. Impeachment trial.
prosecutors had we decided to ignore the Supreme
Court ruling and proceeded with the impeachment trial, we risk undermining the
judiciary's role as the final arbiter of constitutional issues and this will
definitely ly create a dangerous president where future legislatures could just
bypass court rulings they deem unwarranted. Mr. President, my dear colleagues,
there should be a balance of power among the three branches of government and this
representation does not wish the Senate to be in a direct collision course with the
Supreme Court amid calls for us to
proceed with the trial. I refuse to be a part of the Senate. I refuse to be part of
a Senate that defies the law, disrespects the courts, and undermines the very
system of justice we claim to uphold. To my colleagues who insist on pressing
forward, I ask these questions. If we cannot obey the law, do we still deserve to
be called lawmakers? If we cannot respect the constitution, do we still deserve the
privilege of serving in public service? Mr. President, political will, however
passionate or burning within us, is not
always the path we should take. There are moments when even our deepest conviction
convictions must kneel before the altar of the constitution. when our desire for
action must bow to the rule of law. Our strength as senators lies not in bending
institutions to our will but in bending ourselves to the will of our constitutional
framework. Our true power is revealed not when we flamboyantly get our way but when
we gracefully accept outcomes that defy our preferences. Our honor rests in
respecting and embracing decisions that
contradict our personal beliefs. And our legacy, our legacy is a democracy that
works, preserved by our by our willingness to submit to something greater than our
feelings, our pride, our ego, our very selves. Mr. President, let history show. But
I chose principle over pressure. law over lawlessness and country over
partisanship. We are not sherking from our responsibility, but to fulfill our
highest duty to uphold the rule of law and to preserve the legitimacy of our
institutions in accordance with the constitution. Mr.
President, let us let us act not with haste but with honor. Let us preserve our
republic, not fracture it. I did not swear an oath to defend emotion. I swore an
oath to defend our constitution. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Gachelan.
Senator Gachelanian is recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr.
President, esteemed colleagues, I rise today to cast my yes vote respecting the
respecting the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court which has declared the
articles of impeachment filed by the
House of Representatives unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has decided and as
public servants sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, our duty is to
respect the court's decision and abide by the ruling. specific void in articles of
impeachment. as if immediately executing obligation from the very beginning. Follow
the law. Impeachment court of impeachment. I voted no. I voted this way. Articles
of impeachment. Impeachment trial. Article 11 section 3 paragraph 6. The Senate
shall have the sole power to
try and decide all cases of impeachment. There is no room for ambiguity. Separation
of powers, executive, legislative, judiciary, the final authority is the Supreme
Court. Mr. President's team colleagues, this representation knows and respects that
we have different perspectives on the verdict of the high court and on the
impeachment itself. Article 8, section one of the constitution. Judicial power
includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are
legally demandable and enforcable and to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or or excess of jurisdiction on any
part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. decision 2003 Francisco
versus the House of Representatives. Now, the Constitution did not intend to leave
the matter of impeachment to the sole discretion of Congress. Instead, it provided
for certain well-defined limits and in the language of Baker versus Carr,
judicially discovered discoverable
standards for determining the validity of the exercise of such discretion through
the power of judicial review Angara versus Electoral Commission. Now the judiciary
in turn with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter effectively checks the other
departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law and hence to declare
executive and legislative acts void if violative of the constitution. grave abuse
of discretionary. It is our duty to respect the decision of the Supreme Court. In
this instance, following and
protecting the process of the law means respecting the decision of the Supreme
Court. We do not follow for the sake of following. law and order ensure consistency
and they preserve our way of life. It is not just any document or an ordinary set
of rules. It is an expression of our collective vision as Filipino people.
Defending and pro defending and preserving the constitution is not only our duty.
It is the right thing to do. Thank you, Mr. President. Esteemed colleagues. Thank
you. Senator Galan, Mr. Secretary,
Senator Go. Senator Christopher Bongo is recognized to explain his vote. I vote yes
and I will explain my vote. Please proceed. Mr. President, I want to register my
affirmative vote to adhere with the Supreme Court decision and to archive the
articles of impeachment. The Supreme Court has already uh spoken in a crystalclear
language. The court uh unanimously ruled that the articles of impeachment against
the vice president are unconstitutional, that the Senate did not acquire
jurisdiction to constitute ourselves as
the impeachment court, and that the decision of the high court is immediately exeu.
The ruling is clear impeachment. This principle of uh checks and balances of the
co-equal branches of our government is the very foundation of our democratic and
republican way of life. The separation of powers allocates to each branch certain
powers and prerogatives that other branches may not question or interfere with.
disrupt that delicate balance and we shake. If not threatened, the foundation of
our democratic system. When that
happens, the people's faith in the various institutions of our government will be
lessened. God forbid. We do not want to come to a point when our people no longer
trust our courts. Decision. That is why I voted in favor of the motion to adhere
with the Supreme Court decision. But let me be very clear. Vice President
impeachment case last June Articles of Impeachment House of Representatives. I said
that justice done the wrong way is not justice at all. Mr. President forit. Let us
buckle down to our work. The
people expect nothing less from us. Ever since I am for peace and unity, Mr.
President, thank you. Uh, Senator Christopher Bongo, Mr. Secretary, Senator
Antiveros, Senator Risa is next to explain her vote po, Mr. President. Mr.
President, I vote no. The 1987 Constitution entrusted the duty to try and decide
all cases of impeachment to the Senate. Today, we are voting to abandon this
mandate. I reiterate that the Supreme Court the Supreme Court decision is not yet
final. So make no mistake, this was an act of
the Senate. It is our institution which in the words of colleagues killed the
articles of impeachment. Our people must have the power to make the highest rulers
accountable. The process of impeachment is meant to question the powers that be and
whether they deserve that power. In short, impeachment intent framers. It should
not be taxing to hold power to account. Anything that will make it easier for a
public officer to evade accountability should be opposed. dismissive articles of
impeachment.
Mr. President. Thank you. Uh, Senator Lisantiveros, Secretary. Senator Laxon.
Senator Pan Philippine Laxon is recognized to explain his vote. Thank you, Mr.
President. without the words immediately executoy and the phrase on 25th July 2025
which held among others that the articles of impeachment are null and void abinio
and that the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the same. I would have voted
in favor of the amended motion because I have always maintained that we must
respect and not disobey the Supreme
Court. But since there's still a pending motion for reconsideration filed by the
House of Representatives through the solicitor general, I believe that the July 25
ruling is by no means final until it rules on the motion for reconsideration with
finality. That being said, I would rather wait not preempt the final ruling of the
high court. It is for these reasons that I abstain. Mr. President, thank you. Uh,
Senator Lakon, Mr. Secretary, Senator Lapid, Senator Leto Lapid is recognized. Mr.
President
Senator Laid Secretary Senator Lagarda Senator Lauren Lagard is recognized to
explain her vote. Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, the Supreme Court has
ruled with clarity. It declared the impeachment complaint not only constitutionally
barred but void from the beginning and further held that the Senate did not acquire
jurisdiction over the matter. This decision by express pronouncement is immediately
exe. We in the Senate are stewards of the constitution and the rule of law. Our
fidelity must be strongest precisely
when institutions are under strain or pressure. To proceed as though the ruling
were uncertain or optional would be a departure from our constitutional duty. This
manifestation is a commitment to respect the present authority of the court's
decision while remaining open to its final word. I cast my vote without prejudice
to the Supreme Court's disposition of the pending motion for reconsideration. The
court speaks and at times it speaks again, but until it does, the Senate must not
act contrary to what it has
already said. For these reasons, I vote yes. I honor the decision of the Supreme
Court. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Uh, Senator Legarda, Mr. Secretary,
Senator Marcoa, Senator Rodante Marleta recognized to explain his vote. [Music]
forchech. forag. Halloween. for Mr. President Mr. President, foreignch. Rules of
procedures, impeachment proceedings, House of Representatives, mainstream media.
Fore [Music] legal luminaries, legal mercenaries. Mr. President, with all due
respect to the world,
Supreme. Agreeable. Article 8 civil codeen judicial decisions applying or
interpreting the laws on the constitution shall form part of the legal system of
the Philippines. I will just request that my entire speech, Mr. President, be
incorporated by way of preference to be included in this explanation in my voting
yes for my own motion. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you uh Senator
Maruetta for your explanation. Uh Madame Secretary Senator Marcos Senator Amy
Marcos recognized to explain
her vote. Thank you very much Mr. President. I vote a resounding yes. districtto
impeachment. Supreme Court. Supremist. Foreitution. Move on. Spoiled. My suggestion
Foreex speaker. Thank you, Senator. Before the uh secretary uh recognizes the next
senator, who are these people creating uh almost creating trouble there? Can you
please trace their identities and send them out of this building? Secretary,
Senator Padilia, Senator Robin Hood Padilla is recognized to explain his vote.
Alhamdulillah.
Senator Maruetta, Senator Sto, Senator, Senator Lakon, Senator Pangilinan, Senator
Aino, Senator Pia Alan Kaitano, Senator Rafi Erwin Tulfo, Senator Miguiri, Ario
Westminster system. UK for impress. Robin dismissal. for due process. Bonasio
Agaldo Ainaldo Marcos Aino Jr. Royo Marcus Jr. Brd, h, vice president. [Applause]
Fore Philippines. for chairmanitution. Supreme Court [Applause] anytime. So yes,
arch Dismissal. Thank you, Senator Robin Padilia. Madame Secretary Senator Pangan.
Senator Francis uh Kiko Pangalin is recognized
to explain his vote. Um this representation votes no [Music] Supenator. Final
decision. Final decision out of respect immediately executo decision. archiving.
Mr. President Resolution Motion for consideration equality house of representatives
interchang equal laya matter on the table to vote to archive the complaint despite
the MR still pending. I believe Mr. president and I believe the others who voted no
uh share this uh position is premature as the ruling may still be reversed or
modified. In addition,
contention to vote to archive the impeachment complaint, if at all, is to give the
Senate the powers which are only reserved for the impeachment court. Deciding,
trying, and deciding impeachment cases. Presidents were cited in that the Senate
and not the impeachment court acted on the impeachment cases of former president
Estrada and Merced Gutierrez. But we submit facts. In the Estrada case, supervening
events led to the termination of the trial. In the case of Gutierrez, the Senate
did not convene as an impeachment court.
Apples to oranges. We believe archiving the case is a matter exclusively within the
powers and jurisdiction of the Senate Impeachment Court. Kaya lay on the table
[Music] under our rules. Allow me to reiterate that the final decision of the
Supreme Court, yes, must be respected. The Supreme Court ruled that the impeachment
court did not acquire jurisdiction and its ruling rendered the official acts of
convening as a court of taking the oath issuing of summons and remanding the
complaint as for all intents and purposes nullified.
constitutional duty and constitutional power as sole uh power to try and decide
impeachment cases. We took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. And that
includes our own determination whether or not the nullification of our of the acts
of this impeachment court and exclusive sole power to try and decide impeachment
cases. If the ruling was based on the facts and not on a misappreciation of the
facts, motion for reconsideration, the the impeachment court being ousted of its
jurisdiction by the
Supreme Court is unprecedented based And sadly, as we read the ruling, the decision
based on the wrong facts, it is disturbing. The distinguished minority leader
pointed out point for point in his interpolation and manifestation the errors in
the facts that the Supreme Court based its findings of grave abuse. I reiterate one
cannot be right with the law if one is wrong with the facts and that's why motion
for reconsideration there is still an opportunity for this errors for these er the
errors to be
corrected MR and this is the reason why we voted No president setting jurisdiction
impeachment court sole power of the House of Representatives to initiate
proceedings. Motion for reconsideration. Harmonize constitutional provisions legal
at binding effect. The power of judicial re of judicial review. the power, the sole
power to initiate impeachment proceedings and the sole power to try and decide
cases of the Supreme Court, of the House of Representatives, and of the Senate.
Salamat, thank you. Uh, Senator Pangalinan, Mr.
Secretary, Senator Sa, the minority leader is recognized to explain his vote. Mr.
President, I I have uh more than expressed myself on this issue. Just in addition,
a lingering question. How can the Senate archive something that is not before it?
The articles are before the impeachment court. Therefore, I cast a negative vote.
Thank you. Uh, minority leader Senator Stoen Tulfo Irwin. Senator Irwin Tulfo is
recognized to explain his vote. Yes. Vice Presidentution. Oneyear bar rule
impeachment complaint.
that I will protect and defend the Constitution. CBP issue. public service is not
just a privilege rather it carries also huge responsibilities. Immune investigation
budget Fore. Yes. Impeachment. Senator Winfo Secretary Senator Tulfoi Senator Rafi
Tulfo is hereby recognized to explain his vote. Mr. President, my vote is yes. Let
me explain my vote. My dear colleagues, in our constitution, the sovereign Filipino
people agreed to establish a government that will run our country. [Music] On the
other hand,
Under the Constitution, it is the House of Representatives that shall have the
exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. Our role only comes when a
valid articles of impeachment complaint is filed before us. Mr. President, the case
before the Supreme Court is about the impeachment initiation procedure before the
House of Representatives. Whether a case of impeachment has been initiated
according to the text and spirit of the Constitution. Of course, I will not delve
into the correctness of the decision of the
Supreme Court, but I believe it is within their authority to interpret the
constitution and declare whether the actions and processes before the House of
Constitutional. And so we must accord the decision of the Supreme Court the same
respect that they give the laws that we enact as the legislative. That is the scope
and limitation of our powers. Having said that, allow me to go to the clear
dispositive portion of the decision. 97 page decision, the articles of impeachment
are unconstitutional and are deemed null and void of initial.
In other words, second, the court said the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction to
constitute itself into an impeachment court. [Applause] Impeachment court. Mr.
President, I agree that we should abide by the decision of the court to avoid any
constitutional crisis. And if I were to take the duty to my heart, I believe the
decision is very clear. No impeachment court was validly convened. That's my vote.
With that said, however, there are concerns raised regarding the decision. So, it
is important for the Supreme
Court to address these concerns. I have faith in the Supreme Court that it will
perform its mandate. That's all. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, uh, Senator
Rafi Dulfo. Secretary, Senator Villain Noeva. The majority leader recognize Senator
Villainova. Thank you very much, Mr. President, Mr. President, esteemed colleagues,
this representation stands today not just a senator judge, but as a member of this
institution who took an oath to uphold the Constitution. And I'm here, Mr.
President, to explain my vote, but more
importantly to stay true to that oath to serve with integrity and give life to the
spirit of the law. Article 11 section one of our constitution provides that public
office is a public trust. This underscores one of the core principles of democracy
that ultimate political power resides with the people and thus the preamble starts
Mr. President, we the sovereign Filipino people because the government's authority
and legitimacy emanates from the people. Thomas Jefferson encapsulated the
expectation from a
person holding public office in one sentence. When a man assumes a public trust, he
should consider himself as public property. Close quote. While due process protects
life, liberty and property, public office is not private property. As Justice
Malcolm wrote in Segoia versus Noel, a public position is not owned by its holder.
Position during the July 26, 1986 discussion of the Constitutional Commission. It
was noted that, and I quote, "A violation of an oath of office is itself a
violation
of the constitution because a public official's oath is in the constitution." Close
quote. Thus, accountability is not only a moral imperative, it is a constitutional
duty. Public officials are answerable to the people at all times and the mechanisms
of impeachment and oversight exist precisely because no one can claim a vested
personal entitlement to office where accountability is demanded. Due process must
still be observed. Foremental decision. The framers of our constitution knew this.
That's why impeachment decisions
are ultimately acts of political and moral judgment, not just strict legal
analysis. impeachment decision. This is a sou role unique, exemptional and deeply
rooted in our democratic system. That is also why both chambers of congress were
given the authority to craft their own rules of procedure in impeachment cases.
Articles of impeachment house. It was a necessary and prudent step towards ensuring
that the proper procedure was followed so that our decision as a court will not be
marred by legal and constitutional infirmities.
Now we are faced with high court's decision that tackles precisely that which we
hope to avert when we remanded the articles of impeachment. Mr. president. So
clearly today, clearly today, the Supreme Court's decision in GR278353 is a
vindication of the Senate's action. We have been called so many names, Mr.
President, and ridiculed in the digital court of public opinion. I'm sure the
Senate President would likely agree with this representation that the allegations
thrown at us regarding the impeachment
and even the decision of the Supreme Court. A matter that we have no participation
in are extremely preposterous and absurd. But this exercise while political in
nature is not about personalities. It's not about revenge. It's not about
prevailing sentiments or personal biases. It is about upholding what is legal and
constitutional and what will hold true in the years that follow. Let me make one
thing clear to ourabans. We in the Senate have never abandoned our mandate in this
impeachment
proceeding. But as they say, Mr. President, descent is not a threat to democracy.
It is essential to its survival. And in that same democratic spirit, I now take
this opportunity to respectfully heir my own descent to certain portions of the
Supreme Court's decision. While we respect the court's authority, I believe there
are portions of the ruling that may have inadvertently made the already difficult
process of impeachment even harder. Impeachment was never meant to be easy, but
neither
was it designed to be impossible. The framers of our constitution deliberately
relaxed the rules to empower the people and lower the barriers to initiating
accountability against high-ranking officials. The constitution even allows any
ordinary citizen to file a verified complaint. And yet, Mr. President, with this
decision, we now see new procedural hurdles that were not explicitly required by
the constitution, including the rigid interpretations of due process at the
preliminary stage. These add layers of complication to a
process that is already politically and institutionally fragile. This was no
accident of drafting. Mr. president. The framers of the 87 constitution
intentionally relaxed the requirements for initiating impeachment, lowering the
vote needed from two/3s as required in the past constitutions to just one-third of
all house members. As explained by the framers of our constitution, this was meant
to to I quote make it easier not harder to hold high public officials accountable.
Close quote. They had lived through a time
when power went unchecked and accountability was elusive. Mr. President, this
representation did not come to this decision lightly. We understand and value the
necessity of public accountability. Republican Supreme Internal rules of procedure.
Article 8, section one of the 87 Constitution expands the Supreme Court's scope of
judicial power by mandating it to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch
or instrumentality of the government. In the case of Angara versus Electoral
Commission, Justice Jose P. Laurel, who later became the third president of the
republic, wrote, and I quote, "When the judiciary mediates to allocate
constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other
departments. It does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the
legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by
the Constitution." Close quote.
Constitutional framersution impeachment and I quote impeachment. [Music]
constitution. This quote captures the heart of what impeachment is meant to be. Mr.
President, it is not about personalities or punishment. It is about protecting the
very structure of our constitutional democracy and sometimes sometimes protecting
that structure means accepting limits even when we disagree with how those limits
are drawn. In this case the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of our laws has
spoken unanimously and I will
say it again spoken unanimously decisively and with finality. It ruled that the
impeachment complaint violated the one-year bar rule, the vice president was denied
due process, and that this Senate, as of the moment, had not acquired jurisdiction.
Mr. President, in closing, again, I would say we may not agree with every word of
that ruling, but the rule of law is not a matter of convenience. It is the
foundation of our democracy. Upholding it even when it is difficult or unpopular is
what gives this
institution its credibility and our democracy its strength. To ignore it, no matter
how justified we may feel, is to risk eroding the very foundation we are sworn to
defend our beloved Constitution. [Music] motion for reconsideration house of
representatives and in adhering to the immediately executoy decision rendered by
the Supreme Court. I vote to transfer the articles of impeachment to the archives.
Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Villar Camille. Senator Camille Villar is
recognized. You may proceed, ma'am.
Mr. President, my dear colleagues, I vote yes to the motion to archive the articles
of impeachment against Vice President Sarah Duterte, respecting the the decision of
the Supreme Court. It is undeniable that the Supreme Court has the power under the
Constitution to declare an act of a co-equal body as unconstitutional. A power
known as judicial review. The power allows the the Supreme Court to ensure that all
branches of the government act within the bounds of the Constitution and it should
be respected.
The three main branches of our government, the legislative, executive, and
judicial. Each is vested with distinct powers and functions by the constitution.
None superior to others. Each operates independently with its own sphere of
authority and serves as a check and balance on the others to pre to prevent abuse
of power. This is the foundation of our democracy and it ensures the rule of law,
accountability and protection of rights of all Filipinos. In this case, the Supreme
Court has spoken. By a unanimous vote, the Supreme
Court declared in clear and unequivocal terms the articles of impeachment against
Vice President Sarah Duterte unconstitutional and null and void. AB initial for
violating the one-year bar rule and due process clause. As a result, the Senate did
not acquire jurisdiction to constitute itself into an impeachment court. This
decision finally is immediately exemp. Mr. President, we have heard many good
arguments in the recent weeks from both sides. Just today being the youngest member
of this robust body I have
learned so much from our esteemed and distinguished colleagues. But to me it is
simple. The opinion or the most important opinion is that of the final arbiter of
our constitution and that is the Supreme Court. I have faith that the Supreme Court
has done their duty and fulfilled their mandate mandate. Being a legislator and a
public servant, it is my duty to abide by that decision. Not too long ago, I took
my oath of office as a senator and I swore to support and defend the Constitution
and I adhere to that today. to do otherwise
can lead to uncertainty and chaos and even a constitutional crisis. This is what
the rule of law expects from each and every one of us. And to respect the rule of
law is to respect our democracy. And that is why I vote yes to the motion before
us. Mr. President, Thank you, Senator Villar. Senator Villar Mark Senator Mark
Villar is recognized. You may proceed, sir. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to
vote yes and explain my vote on the matter before us and to explain why we
compromise today on archiving
this uh very important uh topic. But of course, we must always remember that the
status quo is that the Senate has no jurisdiction. So in legal speak this complaint
is null and void. Last July 25, the Supreme Court rendered a unanimous decision
declaring the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sarah Duterte
unconstitutional, noting that it is barred by the one-year rule under the
Constitution and then it violates due process. The merits of this decision are not
an issue at issue before us. The sole
question we need to answer is whether the Senate should respect the decision of the
Supreme Court. And I say clearly and emphatically, yes. The Supreme Court has the
ultimate authority to interpret what the Constitution is. No one, including the
Senate, can substitute its opinion over the courts in any matter concerning the
Constitution. And the constitution itself in article 8 section 1 entrenches the
court's role in interpreting the constitution and determining whether there has
been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or
instrumentality of the government. This includes the Senate even when acting as an
impeachment tribunal. Justice Laurel laid down the doctrine in the Supreme Court as
the final arbiter of constitutional issues in Angara versus Electoral Tribunal
where it was stated that when the judiciary meditates mediates to allocate
constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other
departments. It does not in reality
nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and
sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting
claims of authority under the Constitution. that we will support and defend the
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. That we commit to obeying all laws
and legal orders issued by the duly constituted authorities. NASA oath of office.
In staying true to our oath of office, we must abide by the order of the duly
constit constituted authority in matters
of the constitution, the Supreme Court. We must uphold the Constitution. Thus, the
Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction to proceed with a trial, much less issue a
verdict. Senior Associate Justice Yonen. The impeachment process is a
constitutional process and although it is also a political process, it is not
isolated from the requirements of the constitution as a whole. Due process
individual Opinionitution. By recognizing the authority of the Supreme Court on the
matter, the Senate does not abandon its mandate and its
wisdom as an independent political body, nor does it sub concede or submit to a co-
equal branch of the government. We are simply upholding the rule of law. Supreme
Courtitution. As a functional society governed by the rule of law, we must accord
our democratic institutions with respect, value their guidance, recognize their
competence, and cherish their independence. Mr. President, Without the rule of law,
people may act without accountability. Government leaders may act on personal
interest. Individual rights can no longer be
guaranteed. Without the rule of law, there can be no justice, no order, and no real
democracy. To end, I would like to quote Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice
Leon, who penned the decision. There is a right way to do the right thing at the
right time. This is what the rule of just law means. This is what fairness or due
process of law means even for impeachment. Thank you Senator Villar. Before
recognizing Senator Ziri, I'd like to thank him for his patience because he's
always last
whenever we do nominal voting. At some point in time, you might want to make a
motion, Senator Ziri, for us to draw lots at on on which letter of the alphabet we
will start voting. Thank you, Mr. Gentleman. May proceed. Mr. Presidentino 265 268
Congressmen Senator, Senator B, Senator Bong, Senator Robin Padilia, Senator,
Senator Irwin, Senator Mark Villar, our Senate President Promp who's not listening,
but he's here with us today together with the move Senator Marka and all the rest.
No.
seatmates and minority. Mr. President, honestly, it pains me to vote against my
minority floor leader. It pained me and Senator uh Lauren. Um but what we are
called to do here today goes beyond a simple vote. We all know that, Mr. President.
It goes beyond a simple vote. Rather, for me, it's a test of our commitment to our
constitution and the rule of law. When the House of Representatives transmitted the
articles of impeachment to us in February 5, 2025, my position was clear. We must
go ahead with the trial as this is our
constitutional duty. In many interviews, that's what I said. It doesn't matter how
I feel about it because many people already said that I was on the other side. But
I've said it doesn't matter what my personal feelings are. What matters is that we
proceed with our constitutional duty. When the motion to remand the articles of
impeachment came up on June 10, 2025, it was also my position again clear that we
must remand the articles for the not for the sake of dismissing the trial,
Mr. president, but for the purpose of ensuring that the House of Representatives
had not violated the impeachment process as laid out in the Constitution. I have
always upheld the principles of rule of law and the primacy of the Constitution,
and I've consistently shown the highest respects for the Supreme Court as the final
arbiter of all constitutional questions. So today, again, my position is clear. We
must respectfully adhere to the court's ruling that the current impeachment
complaint is unconstitutional.
Our constitution expressly empowers the Supreme Court to review even the article or
the actions of political branches. In Francisco versus House of Representatives,
that case which has been mentioned by almost all my colleagues here, the court
affirmed that it is the final arbiter for constitutional questions with authority
to strike down acts that violate the constitution. Thus, I vote to support the
Supreme Court or not to proceed with the trial of the articles of impeachment as it
violates both the
constitution and the guarantees of due process, rendering the current complaint
unconstitutional and void of initial. The grave denial of due process only
magnifies his fatal defect. Without jurisdiction, any trial would be meaningless
and any verdict null and void. Mr. President, to disregard the court's unanimous
ruling would be to invite a constitutional crisis and to break our oath to support
and defend our constitution. The power of impeachment is not without limits. Mr.
President, my dear colleagues, it must be exercised
within the boundaries set by the Constitution as it's as interpreted by the Supreme
Court. And let me be clear for those listening tonight. The court did not place the
vice president beyond scrutiny. It simply required that any future impeachment
follow constitutional safeguards. As simple as that. A new complaint may be filed
by February 6, 2026 lawfully and with due process as the day will shine tomorrow.
There will be an impeachment case filed against her and we will be ready this time.
We will be prepared and follow the
due process that was mentioned by the Supreme Court. I speak, Mr. president. As
someone who's been a legislator for over two decades now, together with the Senate
President, long enough to know that our fragile democracy rests on the strength of
our laws. But our freedoms are given shape by our rules and traditions. And you all
know me as a stickler for rules and traditions together with my minority leader. I
have served in both houses of both houses, House of Representatives and the Senate.
and here in the Senate
being formerly a majority leader, the Senate President and now your deputy minority
leader. In all these roles, Mr. President, I've been consensious in adhering to the
rules and traditions that protect the integrity of our beloved institution. It is
in this spirit that I adhere to the court's decision. My vote today is based on the
Supreme Court's decision last July 25, 2025 without prejudice to whatever
resolution it may later render on the motion for consideration. That's why I thank
the good movement, Mr.
president to allow me to amend or to allow the amendment of his motion to make it a
mere archiving of the document because that will never stop us from being able to
pull out that document from the archives. Senator Marlet, let me just say this, Mr.
President, to end my manifestation and my vote. Restraint is not weakness. It is
obedience to constitutional order. Let us act not in defiance of but in deference
to the constitution to the supreme court and to the people who have entrusted us
these powers in this very
chamber and may God bless us all. Mr. President. Thank you, Senator Ziri. With 19
affirmative votes, four negative votes, one abstension, the motion of Senator
Marcoa as amended by Senator Joel Villainovva adhering to the immediately executive
decision rendered by the Supreme Court unbanked on July 25, 2025, which among
others held that the articles of impeachment are null and void. Abinisho and that
the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction and to move to trans and and to transfer
rather the articles of impeachment in
relation to case number 002-201 entitled in the matter of the impeachment trial of
Vice President Sarah Zimmerman Duterte to the archives. The same is hereby
approved. Majority leader Mr. President Senator B Machino would like to insert his
explanation of vote into the record. Uh so inserted as requested by Senator Bakino
into the record. Senator JV erito as well as that of Senator JV Ersidto. What is
the pleasure of the honorable Pangan? Yes. Just a parliamentary inquiry. Mr.
President uh uh if I recall in previous
uh votes uh we first get the results of the vote before we go through an
explanation of the vote. Um it seems like uh we have changed the the pro process of
voting that was upon the motion of Senator Zubiri earlier which the chair explained
before we uh okay we put the matter to a vote. I I raised this question because
well the reason why at least the practice was the votes first before the
explanation is that at times when there are contentious uh voting uh the corum may
may suddenly uh disappear or uh there will no longer
be a quorum because of the long process of voting. The gentleman is correct unless
a member asks that the procedure we just adopted is instead followed and in this
particular instance the honorable Zubiri moved without objection from any member.
Hence the procedure that we adopted. Mr. President, Senator Zubiri, therefore that
motion that I made was only for today. Okay, we can go back to traditional
practice. That is the understanding. Thank you very much. Correct. Senator, thank
you. Thank you for the
clarification, Mr. President, Mr. Majority Leader. Majority floor leader. Yes, Mr.
President, some administrative uh matters. Mr. President, uh may may I move, Mr.
President, that we dispense with the reading of the journal of the fifth session,
Tuesday, August 5, 2025, and trans and consider the same as approved. So move, Mr.
President. Any objection hearing? None. Motion of the majority leader is approved.
Mr. President with the consent of the body and uh noting that for some measures
this shall lead to a third
committee referral and upon consultation with the minority and conformity of the
chairperson of the committee on games and abusement. I move for the secondary
committee referral um and or change of secondary committee referral as the case may
be on the following measures concerning anti-online gambling to the committee on
banks, financial institutions and currencies. While the prior secondary referrals
will now be third committee referral. This is in view of the measures implications
on the financial and banking system
particularly with respect to fund transfers and other financial transactions
associated with online gambling platforms. These are Senate bill number 30 47 57
142 proposed Senate resolution number 12. proposed senator resolution number 19 and
the privilege speech of Senator Zubili delivered last July 30, 2025. I so move, Mr.
President, the understanding is the lead committee will still be the committee on
games. The majority leader simply changed the secondary. Yes, Mr. President, that
is correct.
May we know if there is a third committee being referred to uh majority leader,
sorry, sorry, that's the question. If the third committee is ways and means, uh we
have no problem with that. But if the third committee as I read it is the banks
that uh that does not fall in the uh rule 10 section 15 that's the second uh Mr.
President second not the third not the third so there are only two committees
referral three Mr. President three. What is the third? The third is the ways and
means. Yeah, no problem with that. What What
about the others? I have a list here of your uh PS 19 and the privilege speech of
Senator Zubiri referred to three four including the privileged speech Mr. President
of uh Senator Mig Zubiri. You are referring it to four committees. Three. three
three committees and not uh ways and means and uh banks and uh not games and
amusement Mr. President games and amusement if it's not ways and means and finance
and you go beyond two you refer it to the committee on rules that's the procedure
that that's that's why Mr. President not
the committees yes Mr. President that's the reason why we are asking the uh the
consent of the minority Mr. President, if if if it if it is not okay with the
minority, Mr. President, I will uh um uh um your honor, um the reason why it's the
majority leader that's making the motion with the consent of the body is precisely
because the additional committee, the request for additional committees was
referred to the committee on rules. And is the committee on rules now acting on
that request with the
permission of the body? It it is now the committee on rules asking for the
permission because it was originally referred to you already. Yes, president. We
were not informed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your understanding. Your
honor, I told you. Any objection? I told you to the motion of the majority leader.
There being none. Motion is approved. Mr. President 0 before um recognizing the
majority floor leader chair would like to correct the uh case number it mentioned
earlier. The record should reflect that the motion
pertain to case number 003-2025. The correction is uh so ordered to be reflected
into the records. Majority leader. Yes, Mr. President. Mr. President, at this
juncture, I move that we adjourn the session until 3:00 in the afternoon of Monday,
August 11, 2025. Before acting on the motion of the majority leader, chair would
like to take this opportunity to thank the members of uh the chamber both majority
and minority for your presence, patience, forbearance and magnanmity that we were
able in such
a way that we were able to um dispose and vote on this difficult matter of national
interest um in the most um pleasant manner, form, shape and size. Thank you very
much. Is there any objection to the motion to adjourn? Hearing none, session is
hereby adjourned until 3:00 in the afternoon of Monday, 11 August 2025. Thank you
once again. Good evening. Thank you, Mr. President.