Transcript of the privilege speech of Deputy Senate Majority Leader Rodante D. Marcoleta
August 6, 2025
Transcript of the privilege speech of Deputy Senate Majority Leader Rodante D. Marcoleta
Senate session | 06 August 2025
Mr. President, I rise on a question of privilege. Today I believe the entire nation awaits the disposition of the matter in regard to the impeachment complaint filed against the Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte in the light of the recent but unanimous decision of the Supreme Court.
Mr. President, this decision was promulgated on July 25, 2025 declaring said complaint to be unconstitutional, void ab initio, violative of due process, and that the Senate in the first place did not acquire jurisdiction over it. Take note Mr. President, it even said that the decision is immediately executory.
But before I continue Mr. President, let me put on record that the initial proceedings, impeachment proceedings conducted by the Senate in the 19th Congress have never been formally carried over to the Senate of the 20th Congress.
I do not know and I'm not aware I cannot recall of any action so far taken by this august Chamber to the effect that the initial impeachment proceedings, which were deemed to have been terminated at the expiration of the 19th Congress at noon of June 30, 2025 have been miraculously brought to life into the present Congress. That having said, Mr. President, I'd like to continue.
Mr. President, the decision of the Supreme Court did not dwell on the intrinsic merits of the impeachment complaint filed against the Vice President. It zeroed in merely on the procedures and the processes taken by the House of Representatives. To repeat, it declared the whole impeachment complaint constituting the articles of impeachment to be unconstitutional, violative of due process, void ab initio. Simply because the rules of procedure and impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives were never followed. And they violated the one-year ban on multiple impeachment complaints as prescribed under Article 11, Section 3, Paragraph 5, which says that no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than twice within a period of one year. Napakasimple po ng sinasabi doon Mr. President.
No impeachment proceedings should be initiated against the same person more than twice within a period of one year. Ilan po ang impeachment complaints na ifinile ng House of Representatives? Apat po eh. The first one started on December 2, sumunod December 4, mayroon pang sumunod na December 19, hanggang sa umabot sa February 5. Yan nga po ang ipinangangalangdakan na impeachment complaint which was signed by more than one-third of the members of the House of Representatives.
Nasunod po ba ang tuntunin ng House of Representatives? Noon pong nag-require ang Supreme Court, Mr. President, tinanong po ang House of Representatives in connection with the two petitions filed by several parties before the Supreme Court. One of the items required by the Supreme Court is for the House to give the status of the first three complaints filed. Ano ang sagot ng House of Representatives? Yun daw unang tatlo, the one filed in Dec. 2, Dec. 4, and Dec. 19, were all archived. Nasaan po sa rules ng House of Representatives na yun pong mga impeachment complaints na ifa-file ay i-aarchive? Wala po.
[SHOWS SLIDE] Pwede po bang ipakita yung slide kung saan ipinakikita kung ano po ba ang proseso kapag may nag-file ng isang impeachment complaint? Ayan po yung Rule 2. Ang sinasabi po sa Rule 2, Mr. President....
Hindi, sa Rule 3, sa Rule 3. Rule 2, Section 3. A verified complaint for impeachment by a member of the House of Representatives, or by any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any member thereof, shall be filed with the Office of the Secretary-General and immediately referred to the Speaker. Bakit hindi po nasunod ang tuntunin na ito? Kailan po nirefer ng Secretary-General sa opisina ng Speaker yung impeachment complaint dated December 2, 2024. Kailan po ni-refer ng Office of the Secretary-General ang impeachment complaint na ifinile noong December 4? Wala po silang sagot. Kailan po ni-refer ng Office of the Secretary-General yung impeachment complaint that was received on Dec. 19? Wala po silang sinasabi. Kung titignan po natin ang sagot ng Solicitor General, on behalf of the House of Representatives, ang sabi po nila, the Secretary General diligently referred simultaneously all the impeachment complaints to the Office of the Speaker on Feb. 5, 2025. Immediately po ba yan? Dec. 2, Dec. 4, Dec.19 at isinama ang Feb. 5, all of them were simultaneously referred to the Office of the Speaker on Feb. 5. Dalawang buwan po ang kanyang ginugol para lang i-refer to the Office of the Speaker. Ano po ang 'immediate' doon? Wala po. Wala po silang sinunod. Wala silang nirefer at nirefer nga po, delayed. Nung ma-refer, ang sabi ng Solicitor General, the four impeachment complaints were included in the Order of Business, doon po sa Session No. 36.
You will note Mr President na hindi po nya ibinigay bilang annex yung Order of Business in Session No. 36. Ang kanya pong ipinakita ay ang Journal No. 36. Bakit po? Sapagkat hindi totoo na ang apat na impeachment complaints were included in the Order of Business.
Mr. President, I have a copy of the Order of Business. Session No. 36. And I will deposit a copy to the office of the Senate Secretary for everyone to see and examine for themselves kung talagang ininclude nila sa Order of Business. Wala po. Saan po nila in-include? Doon sa Journal. Iba po ang Journal sa Order of Business. Alam po niyo kung bakit lang nalagay sa Journal? Idinagdag po nila as additional reference of business. That is not the requirement of the Constitution.
Pwede ba nating makita ang slide kung ano ang sinasabi ng Constitution? [SLIDE] A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by a member of the House, blah blah blah, ang sinasabi po rito, iba po yun...sorry po.. [CHANGES SLIDE] Nakalagay po in-include sa 10th session day, yun po ang Session No. 36. Hindi po totoo yun. Ilang violations na po? Kanina po in-archive ang tatlong violations. Hindi po ni-refer sa Committee on Justice, pangatlong violation, anim na po.
Ngayon sinasabi po in-include sa Order of Business. Hindi rin po, tatlong violations na naman. Siyam na po. At sabi nila ang Session 36 is the 10th session. Hindi po. Bilangin po natin yung December 2, that was the first day when the first complaint was endorsed, was filed, and received by the Secretary General. December 2 is Session no.26. Mr. President bilangin po ninyo Session No. 26 up to Session No. 36 na sinasabi ng Solicitor General. Yan po ang 11th session. That was not the 10th session.
Ang 10th session is Session No. 35, just for the record. So ilang violation na po yan? Balikan po natin yung Rule 2. Ano po yung mode of initiating impeachment? Nandito po ang sinasabi ng rule ng House of Representatives. Impeachment shall be initiated by the filing and subsequent referral to the Committee on Justice. Eto po yung Francisco v. House of Representatives. A verified complaint filed by any member of the House of Representatives is ire-refer po sa Committee on Justice. Any verified complaint filed upon by any citizen upon a resolution endorsement by any member thereof, i-re-refer sa Committee on Justice. A verified complaint or resolution impeachment filed by at least one third of all the members of the House, i-re-refer din po sa Committee on Justice.
Bakit po ang ginawa nila noong makakuha sila ng mahigit sa one-third, dali-dali po nilang trinansmit sa Senate? Ang pagkaka akala po nila, sapagkat ang pinagbatayan nila ay ang Rule 4 kung saan in Section 14 sinasabi po endorsement of the complaint resolution to the Senate. Ang sinasabi lamang po noon ay ang pamamaraan kung paano i-eendorse yung impeachment complaint that was signed by one-third or even more members of the House of Representatives. Hindi naman po sinasabi doon na hindi na sya ire-refer sa Committee on Justice. Bakit po ang nakalagay dito sa rule, kailangan i-refer din sya sa Committee on Justice. But they never did?
So ilang violations na po ito? You cannot use Section 14 in isolation of Section 2. Hindi po pwede yan. Binigyan po ba ng discretion, Mr. President? Was the House given the discretion to select, to withhold and select from among the four impeachment complaints which will be the one to be transmitted to the Senate in derogation of the one year ban rule?
Wala po silang discretion. Kung sila po mismo ay hindi sumusunod sa tuntunin. Bakit po ngayon ay napakarami pong nagsasalita na parang akala mo ang SC pa ang nagkasala, ang nagkamali, samantalang ito po, napakasimple po ng tuntunin hindi kailanman sinunod.
Even the 10th session day na sinasabi nila, 11th session day nung ilagay nila sa Order of Business, they never included them in the Order of Business. Wala. Nasa akin po ang kopya.
Ano pa po ang pagkakamali? Ipakita po natin yung last page ng impeachment complaint. [SLIDE]
Ayan po Mr. President. Subscribed and verified before me, sabi po ng Secretary General, on this blank day of February 2025. Wala pa pong date eh. Ito po ba ang verification Mr. President? Hindi po.
Ang verification po ay nakasaad sa mismong tuntunin ng House of Representatives. Balikan po natin ang Section 3. Ano ba ang sinasabi? Section 3, Paragraph 2, an impeachment complaint is verified by an affidavit that the complainant has read the complaint, and that the allegations are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records. At the very least yan ang dapat nailagay po.
Nakalagay po ba sa verification dito ng Secretary General ng House of Representatives? Wala. Ito po ay parang 'jurat' lang sa isang affidavit. Sinasabi lang, kilala nya yung nagsipirma sa isang dokumento...na ang dokumento ay naglalaman ng 32 pages. This is not the verification required under the rules of impeachment by the House of Representatives.
Ang totoo po, kung balikan natin ang Section 14, nandyan po sa slide. Sinulat na po sa tuntunin kung ano ang dapat kopyahin nila para magkaroon ng tunay na verification, hindi pa po nila kinopya. Ito po yung contents ng verification na dapat sana ay yan ang nilagay nila sa complaint.
"We," sabi po rito, "after being sworn in accordance with law, depose and state, that we are the complainants in the above entitled complaint or resolution of impeachment. That we have caused the said complaint resolution to be prepared and have read the contents thereof, and that the allegations therein are true of our own knowledge, and belief, based on our own appreciation of the documents and of the records pertinent thereto."
Kokopyahin nalang Mr. President? Hindi pa nakopya!
Mr. President alam mo nung ako'y Grade 4, ang teacher po namin binigyan po kami ng isang short quiz. I-drowing ninyo aniya ang Bicol Region. Siguro 1963 yan Mr. President. Yung Masbate hindi pa po kasali sa Bicol Region. Kabisado ko naman po sapagkat mahilig ako sa Social Studies.
Meron pong dalawang nangongopya sa akin. Yung isa nasa likod, yung isa sa kaliwa ko. Yung nasa likod, nakopya niya pong tunay ang aking drowing. Pinagalitan siya pero ipinasa po sapagkat nakopya niya ang aking drowing. Yung isa, nangopya na nga, hindi pa niya nakopya. Ang kinopya po Masbate. Ay wala po, hindi po siya nakapasa.
Ano pong ibig sabihin ko dito? Kokopyahin na lang... alam n'yo po sa mga litigation lawyer, practicing lawyers worth their salt, wala ka lang certification of non-forum shopping ididismiss ka ng SC. Maliwanag po yun. Hindi subscribed yung complaint mo, dismissed ka na agad. Mahigpit po ngayon eh. Ito po, this is an impeachment complaint. You are removing the second highest official of government. Yun lamang verification, sablay na po eh.
Ano pong nakalagay dito? Section 3 Paragraph 3, an impeachment complaint required to be verified which contains a verification based on information and belief, or upon knowledge or information or belief, or lacks proper verification katulad po nito ngayon, shall be treated as an unsigned impeachment complaint.
So pwede po palang tratuhin po ngayon. Sapagkat wala pong verification. It may be treated as unsigned impeachment complaint. Paano ba yun? Nagsasalita po ang napakarami.
Alam po ninyo, Mr. President, kumbaga po sa nagluto ng sinaing, pasensya na po kayo kung kinakailangan ako po'y gagawa ng paghahalintulad ano po, ang impeachment complaint po ay parang sinaing na niluto ng House of Representatives. Hilaw po eh!
Hilaw na hilaw! Ano po yung hilaw sa Bicolano, hilaw din po yata. Sa Bisaya, hilaw din po. Sa Kapampangan, magadto Mr. President. Sa Waray, matagudtod. Sa Ilonggo, lagdos. Sa Ilocano, marakusol. Sana po tama ang aking pagkaka-pronounce.
Ang dami pong nagsasalita. Doon lang po sa House of Representatives, isa pong bagong pasok doon. Ngunit matagal na pong nag-serbisyo sa ating bansa. Naging Senadora, naging Secretary of Justice, naging Chairman ng Human Rights Commission. Alam n'yo po ba kung ano sinabi nya? "Harap-harapan na tayong niloloko! Kakaibang Korte ito. Sana sa palengke na lang finile ang impeachment case. At least doon may nagtitinda ng totoo." Eh sana po magtinda po siya ng matagudtod na kanin sa Samar, baka may bibili kaya? Pwede ba syang pumunta sa Pampanga para magbenta ng magadto na kanin, kung may bibili baka sakali. Pumunta kaya sa Panay para magbenta ng lagdos na kanin. Wala po siguro Mr. President. Baka ngayon dagandingding hindi pa patusin.
Huwag pong ganun. Andami na pong nagsipagsalita. Samantalang hindi naman po nila nakita...kayo po ang nagsimula ng mali, hindi naman po sinabi ng Supreme Court na kailanman ay huwag kayong mag-impeach, huwag na kayong mag-file. Ayusin niyo lang po eh.
Yan lamang po ang gustong mangyari dito. Ayusin niyo, you want to impeach the Vice President, do it in the right way. Hindi naman tinignan ang merito. Ang sinasabi yung proseso hindi po niyo sinunod eh.
Sinasabi na nga walang impeachment complaint bukod sa isa, laban sa isang opisyal sa loob ng isang taon. Akalain mo naman, apat kaagad ang ifinile pagkatapos ang apat iko-consider mo na isa? Hindi naman po yata tama yun.
Mr. President, gusto ko pong basahin, isang parte, ng official statement ng Integrated Bar of the Philippines on the SC's decision on Duterte vs HREP, August 1, 2025.
And I quote: "Disagreement with the Court's reasoning is neither unwelcome nor unexpected. Dissent is not foreign to a democracy. It is essential to its survival. But to incite public repudiation of its authority, or even just to call for its outright defiance, erodes the very foundation of the legal order. Such action disturbs the equilibrium of power and imperil the integrity of our democratic institutions, especially when appropriate legal remedies remain available within the framework of our constitutional system. If every adverse ruling becomes an invitation to disobey, the law ceases to be a constraint on power and becomes its casualty. The Constitution does not require agreement, it demands adherence."
Ang sinasabi po ng ibang mga kasama natin, eh magfa-file pa naman ng motion for reconsideration. Bakit hindi natin hintayin? As I said Mr. President, if you are a practicing lawyer worth your salt, you are confronted with a unanimous decision of the SC. In a firm voice, it said this is unconstitutional, void ab initio, violative of due process, and the Senate never acquired jurisdiction over this. And it is immediately executory.
Parang sinasabi nya sa yo wala ka nang room mag-file n'yan. Is anyone expecting that even one soul of the members of the Supreme Court will reverse himself? We cannot defend our action, Mr. President, on the fortunes of litigation.
Naaalala ko pa nga po eh, dun sa kaso ng Francisco v. House of Representatives. The former Chief Justice Reynato Puno in his separate concurring opinion, naaalala ko po. Ang sabi niya, with the possibility of two impeachment complaints reaching the Senate, the good Chief Justice said that the Senate, in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction, can decide the question of whether or not the one-year bar rule has been violated or not. The Senate can even decide, if on its face, the impeachment complaint has no legal basis.
At ang sabi pa po niya doon, Francisco v. House of Representatives, sabi pa niya roon eh, if the Senate finds that the one-year bar rule is violated or that the impeachment complaint has no legs to stand on, that will be the end of the entire controversy.
He was saying that, let's give all the remedies available to the House and the Senate because of their primary jurisdiction.
But when the case is right for judicial determination, it was the view of the former Chief Justice, that the Supreme Court at that time, and only at that time, when it can speak with great moral authority in order to compel the loyalty, the respect, and the obedience of our people.
Mr. President, when the Supreme Court negates the actions of a co-equal branch of government, it does not assert its superiority. Instead, it upholds the supremacy and the dominance of the fundamental law of the land, the Constitution.
And so the Supreme Court has already spoken. The last arbiter of law, it says the complaint is unconstitutional, is void ab initio, is violative of due process. The Senate never acquired jurisdiction over this.It is immediately executory.
On that note, Mr. President, I respectfully move that the impeachment complaint be dismissed. I so move, Mr. President.
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
