Senator Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan maintained that the Senate should have waited for the Supreme Court to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration (MR) filed by the House of Representatives, seeking to reverse its earlier ruling on Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment case.
“We took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and that includes our own determination whether or not the nullification, the acts of the impeachment court and exclusive sole power to try and decide impeachment cases, if the ruling was based on the facts and not on a misapprehension of the facts,” the senator said in his explanation of vote during a plenary session on Wednesday, August 6.
“Kaya nga sana hinintay ang Motion for Reconsideration. The impeachment court being ousted of its jurisdiction by the Supreme Court is unprecedented and sadly, as we read the ruling, the decision (is) based on the wrong facts.” he added.
Pangilinan voted “no” to a motion by Senator Rodante Marcoleta to archive the Articles of Impeachment, insisting instead that Marcoleta’s motion should be put “on the table” as the Senate waits for the Supreme Court to resolve the MR.
“I reiterate: one cannot be right with the law if one is wrong with the facts. And that’s why napakahalaga nung motion for reconsideration. There is still an opportunity for the errors to be corrected kaya andiyan ang MR,” he said.
The senator also explained that the Senate should have respected the House of Representatives as a “co-equal,” giving it inter-chamber courtesy by letting its MR be resolved first before the Senate acts on the Articles of Impeachment transmitted by the House on Feb. 5.
“Kaya nais po sana natin na i-lay muna yung 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’ share this position, is premature as the ruling may still be reversed or modified,” he stressed.
While expressing his respect to the Supreme Court, he lamented that its decision to strip the Senate impeachment court of its jurisdiction and the House of Representatives its “sole power” to initiate proceedings is “precedent-setting.”
Through the MR filed by the House, the Supreme Court can “harmonize” the contradicting provisions of the Constitution and give “legal and binding” effect to its power of judicial review, the sole power of the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings, and the sole power of the Senate to try and decide cases.
PANGILINAN: SENATE SHOULD HAVE WAITED FOR SC TO RESOLVE MR FILED BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
