Senate archives VP Sara impeachment

MANILA, Philippines, August 7 ------ Nineteen senators last night voted to archive the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as they wait for the Supreme Court (SC) to resolve the appeals on its landmark but controversial decision finding the impeachment complaint unconstitutional.

Four senators – Minority Leader Tito Sotto, Risa Hontiveros, Kiko Pangilinan and Bam Aquino – voted against the motion, while Sen. Panfilo Lacson abstained. Senators voted to “transfer the Articles of Impeachment to the archives, adhering to the immediately executory decision rendered by the SC en banc, which held that the Articles of Impeachment are null and void ab initio, and that the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the same.”

Senate President Francis Escudero said while they voted to archive the case, the senators may still vote to revive the case and bring it out of the archives if the high court reverses its decision and orders the Senate to continue to trial. The archiving was seen as a compromise instead of the outright dismissal of the case, as proposed by Sen. Rodante Marcoleta, who said it was unlikely for the SC to reverse its own unanimous decision.

Senators deliberated for about six hours before reaching a final vote to archive the case. Sen. Pia Cayetano said being voided ab initio meant that the impeachment complaint was “inexistent from the very beginning and inoperative.” Sen. Ronald dela Rosa said he is for archiving the case, as he recalled his role to move for the impeachment dismissal as early as June 10, the date of the Senate impeachment court’s first and only convening.

Explaining his vote to abstain, Lacson said that while he respected the Supreme Court’s decision, he also agreed that the ruling has not yet attained finality. “Without the words ‘immediately executory’ and the phrase on 25 July 2025 which held, among others, that the Articles of Impeachment are null and void ab initio and that the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the same, I would have voted in favor of the amended motion because I have always maintained that we must respect and not disobey the Supreme Court,” Lacson said. “But since there is still a pending motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives through the Solicitor General, I believe that the July 25 ruling is by no means final, until it rules on the motion for reconsideration with finality. That being said, I would rather wait, not preempt, the final ruling of the high court. It is for these reasons that I abstain,” he added.

Despite Sotto’s warning to his colleagues that archiving the impeachment case would amount to killing it altogether, the chamber still voted against his motion to table Marcoleta’s motion to archive the Articles of Impeachment. Voting 19-5, the Senate struck down Sotto’s motion to shelve the archiving of the impeachment articles – effectively rejecting his appeal to suspend action on Marcoleta’s motion while the high tribunal’s decision remains under appeal. “The SC decision is now pending appeal. It is prudent to wait for the results than prematurely archiving if not dismissing. Because I know for a fact that once it is archived, it is dead,” Sotto said before his motion was defeated.

The motion to archive was originally introduced by Marcoleta as a motion to dismiss, triggering a lengthy debate among senators. The debate ended when Senate Majority Leader Joel Villanueva moved to revise the motion to dismiss into a motion to archive the Articles of Impeachment. Escudero explained that the new motion to archive does not dismiss the impeachment complaint, saying as part of “proper administrative procedure,” matters like an impeachment complaint that are archived by the chamber may be scooped out of the archive through a majority vote.

In explaining his vote to stop the motion to archive, Sotto cautioned the chamber on the instance the SC reverses itself. “So, what happens if the SC reverses itself? Clear and blatant errors are present in the ruling of the SC. They did not interpret the Constitution; they amended the Constitution. Lastly, the SC now has a chance to rectify errors in its decision. So, I was hoping to table the motion. So… let us afford them this opportunity for the benefit of future impeachment processes and to uphold the clear mandate of the 1987 Constitution. All we needed to do is wait a little,” he said. “And so, I will register a yes (to table Marcoleta’s motion vote). I know it will be a vote in the minority, but I’ve always voted in the minority on many issues in the Senate since 1992 up to the present. I always prayed I was wrong, unfortunately I was always right. May God have mercy on your decision. I vote yes,” he added.

Source: philstar.com