‘Lawbreakers’: Lawyer hits Senate on Sara Duterte trial
MANILA, Philippines—“Our senator-lawmakers are lawbreakers!”
This was how lawyer and constitutional law professor Howard Calleja described the 18 senators who voted to send back the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte to the House of Representatives, accusing them of violating the Constitution and the Senate’s own impeachment rules.
“These senators are supposed only to listen to the evidence and decide to convict or acquit, not to make motions which Escudero allowed. That is their only mandate. But they acted instead like the lawyers of Sara, which is like a regional trial court judge behaving like the lawyer of the accused,” Calleja said in a statement.
He criticized Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero and the 18 senators who voted for the remand, alleging they used procedural maneuvers to delay, derail, and ultimately avoid the trial of the vice president—who, Calleja said, stands accused of serious offenses involving the misuse of hundreds of millions in public funds.
He argued that the senators’ actions served only to prevent the public from uncovering the full extent of the alleged wrongdoing.
The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, convened in the afternoon of June 10, four months after the Articles of Impeachment were transmitted by the House.
Hours into the session, it adopted a motion originally filed by Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa and amended by Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, asking the House to clarify procedural concerns. The motion passed in an 18–5 vote.
READ: Impeachment court sends Sara Duterte case back to House
The motion questioned whether the House had violated the one-year bar on filing multiple impeachment complaints, and whether the case would still be pursued by the incoming 20th Congress.
Escudero, in a press briefing, defended the Senate’s actions, saying the impeachment court was sui generis, or a class of its own, and had the authority to decide on its own procedures.
“The impeachment court can do whatever it wants to do as long as it gets voted upon,” he said. “And if anyone disagrees, they are free to take it to the Supreme Court.”
Escudero added: “The only one who can say whether something done by any agency is constitutional or not is the Supreme Court. Not them and not us.”
READ: Escudero: Only SC can tell if impeachment articles’ return is unconstitutional
Calleja, however, argued that the Senate’s decision to remand the case—something he stressed is not permitted by either the Constitution or the impeachment rules—was a deliberate effort to prevent the trial from proceeding and to block access to key evidence against Duterte.
He underscored that allegations of massive corruption lie at the heart of the impeachment complaint, yet those entrusted with guarding the public’s interest were instead shielding the accused.
READ: Sara Duterte impeachment: What you need to know
The lawyer also explained that the constitutional violations began as early as February 5, when the House submitted the impeachment complaint to the Senate. Rather than convene the court and begin trial “forthwith” as the Constitution requires, the Senate adjourned even though there were still session days left until February 7.
Calleja said that from that point on, the Senate engaged in a string of delays, citing various justifications over the past four months—none of which, in his view, were grounded in constitutional authority.
“Talo na ang taongbayan sa dami nila. All they need is 9 votes to acquit. So ituloy na ang trial. Unless they know that the case is so strong, the public might wake up and take to the streets and mount another people power,” Calleja said.
(The people have already lost because there are too many senators siding with Duterte. All they need is nine votes to acquit. So they should just proceed with the trial.)
He added that with 18 senators already appearing to side with the vice president, her camp should have no reason to fear losing the case and should allow the trial to proceed instead of blocking it.
Several constitutional experts had earlier criticized the Senate’s decision. Atty. Christian Monsod, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, said the remand violates the clear provision that once the House transmits the complaint, the Senate must proceed with the trial forthwith.
READ: ‘Not judges, but defenders’: Lawyers hit Senate’s return of Sara Duterte impeachment case
“When people in power mock our laws and the Constitution for unpatriotic and personal goals, our democracy, our republic face an existential threat. It is time for the people to wake up once more,” Calleja added.
Follow how this historic trial unfolds: get the latest updates on INQUIRER.net’s special coverage: LIVE UPDATES: Senate sends back impeachment articles to House for review
RELATED STORIES:
Enrile: Senator-judges changed stance before, they can do it again
WATCH: Juan Ponce Enrile talks about impeachment, Senate’s role
Strong, credible voices reverberate vs ‘delay’ in Sara Duterte trial
