Legal squabbles foil Senate minority bid to start Sara trial before June 11
MANILA, Philippines — After hours of impasse, senators on Monday night voted unanimously to send the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte to the rules committee — effectively thumbing down the Senate minority's attempt to convene as a court and read the charges today.
Hours of hand wringing over procedure and the timing of Duterte's impeachment trial — which her allies have been trying to dismiss — ended with a "compromise" between the majority and minority blocs: it's only the oath-taking that will be held days earlier, but the formal reading of charges against Duterte remains set for June 11.
Senate Minority Leader Koko Pimentel had initially filed a motion for the senators to constitute themselves as an impeachment court and read the articles of impeachment today.
Pimentel and Sen. Risa Hontiveros argued that further delay in initiating the trial went against the Constitution and risked "eroding public trust" in the Senate.
But after over an hour of discussion during a suspended session, Sen. Joel Villanueva filed three motions that Pimentel and Hontiveros described as a hard-fought compromise:
- That the articles of impeachment be referred to the Senate rules committee, months after they were transmitted by the House of Representatives in February
- That Escudero take his oath of office as presiding officer of the court today
- That the senators take their oath of office tomorrow (June 10), 4 p.m., a day ahead of schedule
But the so-called compromise suddenly did not sit well with Sen. Bato dela Rosa, who, after listening to Villanueva's motion, repeatedly sought his and Escudero's assurance that the act of oath-taking itself did not trigger the formal convening of the court.
Dela Rosa, a Duterte ally, said that "[if] it follows that after all the members of this body have taken their oath, it would automatically trigger the convening of the impeachment court," he would not vote in favor of the third motion.
This point of discussion sent the senators into another debate over whether the act of taking their oaths as judges would be akin to convening the actual impeachment court.
After another suspended session, Villanueva took the floor to present the same motions. He clarified that the act of oath-taking tomorrow, Tuesday, would "constitute" the court, but "not convene [it] yet."
All three motions were approved with no objections, but the tiny two-member minority bloc had expressed dismay over the pushback against what is already a watered-down version of Pimentel's motion.
"Naturally, there is an effect that, when the presiding officer takes an oath today, and then tomorrow we do the same as senator judges... That is the natural effect: that we have constituted an impeachment court," Hontiveros said in mixed English and Filipino.
Pimentel said: "We are being dropped. The minority is being dropped if we now object to the third motion," Pimentel said.
"We wanted to convene the court tonight. This is the product of an attempt to compromise," he added.
Prior delays. Legal experts and civil society groups have repeatedly urged the Senate to stop delaying the trial, arguing that the Constitution mandates impeachment proceedings "shall forthwith proceed" regardless of the upper chamber's legislative calendar.
Escudero had earlier rescheduled the reading of the charges from June 2 to June 11, effectively giving the upper chamber days left for the proceedings before Congress adjourns sine die on June 14.
The Senate president has denied intentionally delaying the trial. During Monday's plenary session, stretching well into the night, Escudero said he was merely following the rules to prevent any misstep.
However, Hontiveros accused the Senate of deliberately choosing to stall the proceedings.
"We cannot say that we had no choice, that we were straightjacketed by what our Rules on Procedure provided. We had a choice every step of the way," Hontiveros said.
"And our choice has been to delay, to drag our feet, to hide behind what we say are legal ambiguities," she added.
- Latest
- Trending
