Tito Sotto: SC ruling on Sara Duterte’s impeachment 'sets a dangerous precedent'
Senate minority leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III said that the Supreme Court “practically amended the Constitution” when it voided an impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte and ruled it was unconstitutional.
"The decision of the Supreme Court is really flawed. It practically amended the Constitution," he said on The Philippine STAR’s Truth on the Line on Friday, Aug. 8.
“Delikado ‘to, [and] it’s not about the VP. It’s about preserving the Constitution,” he noted.
The official pointed out that the SC laid down additional guidelines in its ruling. “[They said] evidence must be detailed [and the] impeached officer must be given a chance to refute the complaint. Eh kung ayaw umattend, walang impeachment?” Sotto said.
Another requirement, the senator explained, is that all 300 House members must have access to the complaints and must execute affidavits of having read and understood the articles of impeachment. “Kung sabihin kong ayaw kong basahin, wala akong kopya eh, hindi kayo pwedeng mag-impeach? [Halimbawa], dalawa o tatlong buwan akong nasa abroad,” he said. “Naiba na [ang rules]. Wala nang ma-iimpeach, believe me.”
On July 25, the SC declared that the impeachment case against the VP was unconstitutional as it cited a violation of the one-year bar rule for dismissing the first three impeachment complaints and submitting a fourth one.
Sotto pointed out that the high court's decision influenced the Senate's move to archive the impeachment case with a 19-4-1 vote on Aug. 6. Sen. Rodante Marcoleta initially made a motion to dismiss the impeachment case, but it was later amended to be archived. Minority Floor Leader Vicente "Tito" Sotto III moved to table Marcoleta's motion, but lost with 5-19 votes.
The official said he's counting on his fellow senators to stick with their statement that they based their votes merely on the SC ruling. If the high court reverses its decision, Sotto noted there's no more reason not to convene as an impeachment court. “I’d like to place this on record: I want to adhere to the decision of the Supreme Court when it’s final, upon its final disposition,” he told The STAR.
Sotto emphasized that he wants the Senate to fulfill its mandate to hold a trial regardless of the official facing impeachment. “Kahit hindi si VP Sara ‘yan… The number one problem as far as I’m concerned is [that] we are amending the constitution instead of interpreting the constitution, which should be the [job] of the Supreme Court.”
“The decision sets a dangerous precedent, which is not good for the country, especially for the future,” Sotto added.
The House of Representatives filed a motion for reconsideration on Aug. 4, rejecting the SC’s retroactive implementation of the impeachment rules. The 70-page motion stated that due process “is already built into Article XI Section 3 [of the Constitution] itself in the form of a Senate trial.” The motion also argued that the one-year bar rule, which prohibits the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same official more than once within one year, is not applicable in the case.