La Viña: Returning impeachment complaint vs VP Sara Duterte to House is “illegal, unconstitutional, immoral”
DAVAO CITY (MindaNews / 11 June) – The issuance of summons to Vice President Sara Duterte on Tuesday night by the presiding officer of the Senate Impeachment Court was a “correct procedure” as it commenced the impeachment trial but the Senate’s move to return the Articles of Impeachment back to the House of Representatives “has no legal effect as it is unconstitutional,” Antonio La Viña , a former Law dean who continues to teach Constitutional Law in several universities nationwide, said.
“The Senate has no power to remand an impeachment complaint to a co-equal body. So it has no legal effect and the House of Representatives will likely and correctly ignore it,” he told MindaNews on Wednesday.
La Viña also noted that aside from being “illegal and unconstitutional,” the Senate decision was “also immoral.”
“The majority legitimized impunity and corruption in order to avoid their responsibility,” La Viña, a native of Cagayan de Oro City but presently based in Quezon City, said.
In Mindanao, a group of lawyers called on the Senate to “immediately reconsider and reverse its decision” to return the Articles of Impeachment back to the House.
The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court on Tuesday night, voted 18-5 with no abstention, to return to the House of Representatives the Articles of Impeachment that the House transmitted to the Senate on February 5, 2025 by a vote of more than two-thirds of its members.
All 23 senator-judges were present during the voting. The five who voted against the motion are Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel III, Senate Deputy Minority Leader Risa Hontiveros and Senators Nancy Binay, Sherwin Gatchalian and Grace Poe.
“This move by the Senate spits on the very essence of accountability and transparency that the Filipino people deserve. It sets a perilous precedent, further weakening our institutions and eroding public trust in the rule of law,” the Union of People’s Lawyers in Mindanao (UPLM) said in a statement released late Tuesday night.
It urged the Senator-Judges to fulfill their constitutional mandate and proceed with the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte “without any further delay” as the people’s right to demand accountability from their leaders “must not be trampled upon by political maneuvering and self-serving interests.”
From “dismissal” to “remand”
After the voting, Senate President Francis Escudero, the presiding senator-judge, issued the writ of summons to the Vice President, directing her to answer within a non-extendible period of 10 days from receipt of the summons and the copy of the complaint. The House prosecution panel will be given five days to reply. The 19th Congress ceases on June 30, when the 20th Congress takes over.
On June 9, Escudero took his oath as presiding officer but calendared the oath-taking of the other members of Senate at 4 p.m. on June 10 and the reading of the Articles of Impeachment on June 11.
Senator Ronald dela Rosa initially moved to dismiss the impeachment complaint, citing the alleged “constitutionally unsound foundation” of the Articles of Impeachment sent to the Senate. Three other impeachment complaints were filed late last year but were not acted upon.
“My honored colleagues, had the House complied with their own rules and the Constitution, the three previous impeachment complaints would have been referred to the appropriate Committee by the time the present impeachment complaint was filed and sponsored by the members of the House of Representatives. In other words, your Honors, the intentional inaction of the House of Representatives allowed its members to purportedly circumvent the one-year ban enshrined in Article XI, Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution,” he said.
Concluding his speech with a motion, dela Rosa said: “I respectfully move that, in view of its Constitutional infirmities and question on the jurisdiction and authority of the 20th Congress, the verified impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte be dismissed.”
Dela Rosa served as the first chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP) under the administration of then President Rodrigo Duterte, father of the Vice President. He served as PNP chief from July 1, 2016 to April 19, 2018. Dela Rosa was chief of police of Davao City under Mayors Sara Duterte and Rodrigo Duterte, from January 30, 2012 to October 18, 2013. Sara was mayor from June 30, 2010 to June 30, 2013 while her father returned for a seventh term as mayor on June 30, 2013.
“Hindi naman nakakain itong impeachment”
Fellow Dabawenyo Senator Christopher Lawrence “Bong” Go, former Special Assistant to President Duterte, seconded dela Rosa’s motion but introduced the possibility of remanding the Articles of Impeachment back to the House of Representatives.
“Hindi naman nakakain itong impeachment” (Impeachment cannot be eaten), Go said as he urged his colleagues to ensure that before going on trial, the process be examined carefully to ensure it is the right one.
At the very least, maaring pwedeng ibalik o iremand muna ito sa pinagmulan sa HOR dahil marami pa ngang mga katanungan na hindi nasasagot. Mas mabuting siguraduhin natin na sumunod sa proseso ang anumang kasong ating diringgin para hindi masayang ang ating oras (we can return or reman this back to the HOR because there are many questions that have not been answered. It is best if we ensure that we follow the process in whatever case that we are hearing so we do not waste time), said Go, long-time assistant to then Mayor and later President Duterte before he was elected Senator in 2019.
Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, who ran as Vice President in tandem with Presidential candidate Rodrigo Duterte in 2016, and who served under the Duterte administration as Foreign Affairs Secretary from 2017 to 2018 and Speaker of the House of Representatives from 2019 to 2020, put forward Go’s proposal into an amendment to dela Rosa’s motion to dismiss.
In the midst of the long debates, Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel III reminded his colleagues that in an Impeachment Court, motions should be clear and not be subject to styling. He demanded that the motion be put in writing and flashed on the huge LED screen for everyone to see.
Final motion
Cayetano read the final amended version: “Mr. Presiding Officer, I move to amend the motion of Senator De La Rosa to read as follows, that the Articles of Impeachment be returned to the House of Representatives without dismissing -and that should be nor- nor terminating the case until such time that: (1) the House of Representatives certify to the non-violation of Article 11, Section 3, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, which provides that ‘no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year;’ including the circumstances of the filing of the first three impeachment complaints; and (2) that the House of Representatives of the 20th Congress communicate to the Senate that it is willing and ready to pursue the impeachment complaint against the Vice President.”
Pimentel said he voted no to the motion “because it clearly contains dangerous language susceptible to a lot of interpretations.”
“Kita naman natin sa explanation of vote nung ating mga kasama. Suspend lang pala ang gusto, returnang ginamit. Return na nga ang ginamit, remand ang explanation” (Look at the explanation of our colleagues. They want suspension but used ‘return.’ They used ‘return’ but meant ‘remand’ in their explanation), Pimentel said, as he stressed that the language used in the motion is “ganon kadelikado” (so dangerous) when what the Senate wants to achieve could easily be done through an advisory to the prosecution panel.
But Pimentel said there was one consolation in that the motion, under number two, “actually recognizes cross-Congress transfer of the impeachment case from the 19th to the 20th Congress.”
“That is now the clear and unmistakable interpretation of number 2,” he said.
Senator-Judge Hontiveros said she voted no because the wording of the approved
motion “introduces unnecessary ambiguity to the already politically charged proceedings,” describing it as “dangerous and disingenuous.”
“The same purpose could have been achieved by merely asking the House prosecutors to file a compliance and clarify certain issues. Wala pong remand or return sa Constitution. Ang obligasyon natin, try and decide. Isa po itong kabalintunaan. (There is no ‘remand’ nor ‘return’ in the Constitution. Our obligation is to try and decide. This is a paradox)
The Vice President was impeached for alleged misuse of public funds, unexplained wealth, allegations of plotting murder, among others.
Articles of Impeachment
In his Privilege Speech on June 9, Pimentel reminded his colleagues of the seven articles of impeachment lodged against the Vice President.
“To remind us, the Articles of Impeachment transmitted by the House of Representatives on February 5, 2025 read as follows.
“Article 1. Respondent betrayed the public trust, committed culpable violations of the Constitution, and or committed high crimes in contracting an assassin and plotting to murder or assassinate the incumbent president, the First Lady, and speaker of the House of Representatives as publicly admitted by her in a live broadcast.
“Article 2. Respondent betrayed the public trust and or committed graft and corruption, inner misuse and malversation of confidential funds appropriated to the Office of the Vice President, (OVP), and the Department of Education (DepEd).
“Article 3. Respondent betrayed the public trust and or committed bribery and or other acts of graft and corruption in violation of Republic Act No. 3019.
“Article 4. Respondent committed culpable violations of the Constitution and or betrayal of public trust in amassing unexplained wealth and failing to disclose all her properties and interests in properties in her Statement of Assets and Net Worth (SALN) open and closed parenthesis, SALEN, in violation of Section 17, Article 11 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
“Article 5. Respondent committed other high crimes, including the high crime of murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
“Article 6. Respondent, by herself and or in concert with others, committed acts of destabilization, constituting at least a betrayal of public trust and/or culpable violations of the Constitution and even the high crimes of sedition and insurrection.
“Article 7. The totality of Respondent’s conduct as Vice President, including her commission of the foregoing acts, clearly display conduct constituting a betrayal of public trust, culpable violations of the 1987 Constitution, and graft and corruption.”
Pimentel said these allegations are serious and demand “nothing less than a prompt and fateful discharge of our constitutional duties.”
As of 3 p.m. on Wednesday, the Vice President has yet to comment on the Senate Impeachment Court’s decision. Her brother, Mayor Sebastian Duterte, posted a one-liner on his social media page on Wednesday morning: “Ang gaba di magsaba” (Punishment for wrongdoings comes unannounced). (Carolyn O. Arguillas / MindaNews)
No comments:
Post a Comment