Why 5 senator-judges voted against returning Duterte case to House
SENATOR-JUDGES Senators—or the majority of them—finally get to don their judges’ robes that have been ready since March and take their oath as members of the impeachment court on Tuesday, with Senate President Francis Escudero serving as presiding officer. —NIÑO JESUS ORBETA
MANILA, Philippines — When the Senate impeachment court decided to return the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte to the House of Representatives, only five senator-judges resisted.
Senate Minority Leader Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III and Senators Risa Hontiveros, Grace Poe, and Sherwin Gatchalian all voted “no” when Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano moved on Tuesday to return the Articles of Impeachment to the House.
Cayetano’s motion clarified that returning the articles to the House does not mean the impeachment court is dismissing or terminating the case.
According to the motion, however, the House must certify that it did not violate the one-year ban on filing an impeachment case and that the House of the 20th Congress would pursue the impeachment complaint against the Vice President.
Eighteen of the 23 senators approved the motion.
READ: Impeachment court sends Sara Duterte case back to House
Here is how the five senators explained their “no” votes.
“I strenuously vote no to the motion,” Hontiveros said after the voting, noting the wording of the motion, which she said contained “unnecessary ambiguity to the already politically charged proceedings.”
“Return means ‘to give back’ or ‘to send back.’ In judicial matters, a case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings,” she explained.
“So I cannot accept this kind of wording. It is dangerous and disingenuous, particularly when the rules of court have suppletory application. The same purpose could have been achieved by merely asking the House prosecutors to file a compliance and clarify certain issues,” she added.
There is also no word “remand” or “return” in the 1987 Constitution, just the Senate’s mandate to try and decide on any impeachment case, Hontiveros pointed out.
“This is a paradox, Mr. Presiding Officer,” she concluded.
Gatchalian, meanwhile, clarified that his vote had nothing to do with whether the Articles of Impeachment transmitted to the Senate were constitutionally infirm, superior, or sound.
“My vote is solely related to transparency, in the hope that we could have discussed this issue in an open trial,” he explained.
This, he said, would give not only the prosecution and the defense teams but even senator-judges a chance to tackle and scrutinize the case against Duterte.
“We can still outright dismiss it during the open trial or the trial proper. In this way, there will be transparency, and fairness and due process will be observed,” Gatchalian said.
“My view on this is that what happened was premature, but we respect the decision and the vote of the majority because this is the path they see,” he added.
In voting against the motion, Poe stressed that a “trial is not a judgment of guilt.”
She also reminded her colleagues of their constitutional mandate to “forthwith” proceed with the trial once a verified complaint against an impeachable officer is transmitted to the Senate.
Like Hontiveros, Pimentel said he voted against Cayetano’s motion as “it clearly contains dangerous language, susceptible to a lot of interpretations.”
“And what we want to achieve is actually simple. That’s achievable through an advisory,” he added.
But as a consolation, Pimentel said, at least Cayetano’s motion recognizes that the impeachment case against Duterte can cross over to the 20th Congress.
Binay did not explain her vote, although she had earlier inquired how the return order could affect the impeachment proceedings against Duterte.
Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero, who is acting as presiding officer of the impeachment court, was among the 18 senator-judges who agreed to send the Articles of Impeachment back to the House./mcm
