Senate President Aqulino “Koko” Pimentel III. INQUIRER.net file photo / CATHY MIRANDA
The Senate resolution defending the legislature’s power to initiate and try impeachment cases is headed to the plenary for discussions after being filed on Thursday.
Fourteen senators from both the majority and the minority blocs served as coauthors of the measure, which asks the Supreme Court to review its decision to unseat Maria Lourdes Sereno as Chief Justice through a quo warranto petition.
They are Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III, Minority Leader Franklin Drilon and Senators Ralph Recto, Loren Legarda, Francis Pangilinan, Francis Escudero, Antonio Trillanes IV, Sonny Angara, Bam Aquino, Grace Poe, Leila de Lima, Sherwin Gatchalian, Risa Hontiveros and Joel Villanueva.
Pimentel said it would be better to discuss the resolution on the floor “so all points of view are expressed.”
Malacañang said it respected the senators’ decision to ask the Supreme Court to review its 8-6 ruling on May 11 to remove Sereno from office.
Presidential spokesperson Harry Roque, however, said he agreed with Sen. Panfilo Lacson, who did not sign the resolution, that seeking a review of the decision at this point was premature.
Sereno has said she will appeal the ruling.
With the majority of the 23-member Senate backing the measure, Pangilinan and Hontiveros expressed hope the resolution would be adopted easily when taken up in the plenary.
Standing up for democracy
Aquino said the resolution was the Senate’s response to the calls for it to stand up for the people and for democracy.
The resolution expresses the sense of the Senate to uphold the Constitution on the removal of a Chief Justice, and “respectfully urges the Supreme Court to review its decision to nullify the appointment of Maria Lourdes Sereno.”
Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III said he would not support the resolution because he did not want to meddle with the affairs of the judiciary.
Sen. Gregorio Honasan II, who also did not sign the resolution, told reporters that he believed the measure was premature, as the ruling was subject to appeal and the House of Representatives had not yet decided what to do next. — WITH REPORTS FROM JULIE M. AURELIO AND CHRISTINE O. AVENDAÑO