By threatening to dismiss through voting the impeachment articles against Vice President Sara Duterte, did the 19th Senate under SP Chiz Escudero try to hide whatever tokens or favors some of its members might have received from those public funds that have been blatantly splurged by her?
Because based on the impeachment that former President Joseph Estrada went through, the impeachment court had to demand the opening of Estrada’s bank accounts that could prove his receiving gambling money and committed plunder.
In Sara’s case, people are speculating that the staunch defense of the Senator- judges against going through an actual trial could lead to missteps and result in questions as to actual beneficiaries of funds and favors, that could implicate some of them.
CONSTITUTION BETRAYED
Public outrage and vehement objections of Escudero’s latest pronouncement about junking the impeachment case via voting, have been filling the airwaves and social media, which some speculate could lead to a trial of the Senate as an institution itself, for betraying the Constitution in the VP’s case.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, can dismiss a case without hearing evidence, Rappler said.
The possibility of junking the articles of impeachment surfaced during a press briefing on June 25, when SP Escudero was asked if senator-judges could simply dismiss the impeachment case, to which he replied “That’s possible.”
REMANDED
A senator filing a motion to dismiss the impeachment case is entirely possible. However, whether such a move is constitutional is another matter. In fact, on June 10, diehard Duterte ally, Sen. Bato dela Rosa, filed a motion in plenary to dismiss the case against the VP. Although his motion was opposed by fellow senators, the majority ultimately decided to remand the case to the House, further delaying the proceedings.
Escudero explained that there are no restrictions on what motions can be filed in plenary, including a motion to dismiss. Such a motion would only require a simple majority vote — or 13 out of 24 senator-judges — to pass.
‘Incoming Rep. Leila de Lima, one of impeachment-judges said Escudero is trying to make his own Constitution in dismissing the impeachment case of the VP.’
DISMISS WITHOUT HEARING?
Returning Sen. Panfilo Lacson said it would be improper for senators, acting as judges in the impeachment court, to file a motion to dismiss the case without first hearing the evidence.
The Constitution is specific– “try and decide all cases of impeachment under Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.”
Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, can dismiss a case without hearing evidence, a view shared by House prosecutor Joel Chua.
UNFAIR TO SKIP TRIAL
Opposition Senator Risa Hontiveros said it would be unfair to skip the trial proper and proceed directly with a motion to dismiss — which, she noted, is essentially the substance of Duterte’s ad cautelam.
“I do not agree that it is our right, as the Senate impeachment trial court, to vote on and decide on a motion to dismiss — especially without even less than a minute of the trial taking place — as contained in the formal answer ad cautelam. We need to sit as senator-judges, conduct the trial, and only then decide and vote on whether or not to convict or acquit.
UP Law Professor Paolo Tamase opined that senator-judges cannot move to dismiss the case without a proper trial. “For one, it’s not in the Senate’s own rules. The sui generis character of impeachment doesn’t make the Senate an un-republican institution that can do whatever it wants. It also seems to be premised on inapplicable American practice.”
Tamase was referring to the similar dismissal procedures carried out by the US Senate in 2024 during the impeachment of then-Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. The Senate dismissed all impeachment charges against Mayorkas, effectively ending the House Republicans’ effort to remove him from office over his handling of the US-Mexico border issue, and concluding the trial before any arguments were heard, Rappler said.
DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS
“[The] Philippine impeachment practice has developed and is motivated by different constitutional considerations: the convening of the Senate as an impeachment court, allowing public participation, and a full presentation of the evidence before the public are among things that the Corona and Estrada impeachment courts have done in contrast to US Senate practice,” Tamase explained.
Incoming Rep. Leila de Lima, one of impeachment-judges said Escudero is trying to make his own Constitution in dismissing the impeachment case of the VP.