Manifestation of Senator Risa Hontiveros on the Senator Rodante Marcoleta's motion to dismiss the Senate impeachment proceedings
August 6, 2025
MANIFESTATION OF SENATOR RISA HONTIVEROS ON THE SENATOR RODANTE MARCOLETA'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS
Earlier, Mr. President Sen. Marcoleta said he refuses to speculate on reversal- but the gentleman's own position is based on his own speculation that the SC will not reverse its decision.
A tabling of the Motion to Dismiss, which is what I will second in a few minutes, Mr. President, a tabling of the Motion to Dismiss by the Senate today would not be defiance of a Supreme Court. Wala pa nga pong final na decision. Kahit ang Supreme Court, inaantay pa ang Comment ng VP.
That is why I will be seconding the motion of the Minority Leader to Table the motion to dismiss the impeachment complaint until the decision of the Supreme Court has attained finality.
Tama po- we should exercise extraordinary prudence in this matter of transcendental importance. Still, I also wish to also take this opportunity to express my thoughts at this crucial moment for our chamber.
Mr. President, I agree, and I continue to respect the Supreme Court. Hindi po magbabago iyan. But Mr. President, hindi naman po ibig sabihin ng respeto ay pananahimik, lalo na kapag inisip natin kung gaano kalaki ang nakataya dito. Magkaiba rin yung rumerespeto at yung bulag.
Kaya naman, I will not be choosing silence, nor will I be turning a blind eye, in the face of clear and unmistakable injustice.
I am encouraged by the words of brave professors of the UP College of Law, who in 2010, issued a sharp critique of a Supreme Court decision, Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary, which said: "The Court cannot regain its credibility and maintain its moral authority without ensuring that its own conduct, whether collectively or through its members is beyond reproach."
So, in the context of the SC decision Duterte vs. House of Representatives, I believe we need to shed light on some concerns, which former justices and constitutional framers themselves, some of whom are here this afternoon, Mr. President, have underscored.
Una: The Supreme Court decision was based on critical factual errors. At binanggit na rin ito ni Minority Leader. This has since been pointed out by no less than Retired Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.
For example, the decision said that the February 5 impeachment complaint was transmitted to the Senate without a plenary vote in the House. A simple check of the records -- specifically House Journal No. 36 -- shows that this is false!
Walang haka-haka, those official records are plain for anyone to see. Sabi tuloy ni Retired Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, na siyang Chairman ng Philippine Constitution Association-- "the Supreme Court was faced with a famine of facts necessary to make a decision invulnerable to constitutional assaults."
Pangalawa: Actions already taken under a prior and valid interpretation should be recognized as legally effective. Yan naman ay mula kay Retired Justice Adolf Azcuna.
The House of Representatives was operating under the regime of the legal doctrines in Francisco and Gutierrez, which held that the initiation of impeachment proceedings begins from referral.
Kung unconstitutional pala na sundin ang legal doctrines, in the words of Justice Azcuna, that is "legally unfair". Paano nga naman unconstitutional... kung sinunod lang nila ang patakaran ng mismong Korte Suprema?
Dagdag pa, sa isang desisyon nitong 2020 lamang, Madreo vs. Bayron, sabi ng Korte na kung may pagbabago sa doktrina at interpretasyon ng batas, dapat prospective ang aplikasyon nito.
At ang pangatlo at huling punto: Mistulang nadagdagan ang requirements sa proseso ng impeachment na hindi naman nakasaad sa ating Saligang Batas. These new limitations, Mr. President, are not found in our fundamental law! Wala yan sa Konstitusyon at kontra yan sa accountability.
One disturbing example - sabi ng desisyon, kailangan daw naisumite na ang bawat ebidensya laban sa opisyales sa pag-file pa lang ng complaint sa House. Dapat ba naka-attach na ang bawat bank slip, public record, o testimonya ng witness na ihaharap, kahit wala pa silang proteksyon ng Senate impeachment court?
Ang tanong tuloy ng marami: realistic ba 'yan? Paano kung ang impeachment ay laban sa mataas na opisyal na kayang-kayang magtago ng ebidensya, o manakot ng mga potential witness?
Bakit humaba yata ang checklist ng proteksyon para lang sa impeachable officials? Samantalang ang taumbayan na nagtatanong, na naniningil ng pananagutan... sila pa ang pinahirapan? Sila pa ang nadagdagan ang requirements?
Ayon sa Korte Suprema, an "official facing impeachment does not stand to lose fundamental constitutional rights such as life, liberty, or property." Hindi buhay, kalayaan, o pag-aari ang inihahabla sa impeachment.
Kung ang usapan naman ay due process, hindi ba't ang mismong impeachment trial na nga ang mismong venue para doon? Maririnig ang dalawang panig. May ebidensya, may magdedepensa. That IS due process. So what are we afraid of?
At dahil narito po sa gallery ngayon Mr. President ang isa sa mga constitutional commissioners na si Christian Monsod, e di lalo po akong confident na mag take exception sa isang sinabi kanina ng good gentleman mula Taguig at Pateros na dapat mahirap ang proseso ang impeachment. Kontra po doon ang pananaw ng Constitutional Commission kung mababasa po natin ang records ng deliberations ng Commission partikular sa panig ni Commissioner Regalado. Muli, patuloy nating nirerespeto ang Korte Suprema. Pero pwede mong respetuhin ang isang institusyon, habang nagtatanong at pinag-uusapan ang kanyang desisyon.
In Firestone Ceramics, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, the Court conceded that is not infallible. "Should any error of judgment be perceived, it does not blindly adhere to such error.... In this jurisdiction, rectification of an error, more than anything else, is of paramount importance."
In the 2010 letter that I mentioned earlier, the UP Law professors said that the position of the Supreme Court as the "Final Arbiter of all controversies" requires "competence and integrity completely above any and all reproach." A breach of these values, the professors said, "does violence to the primordial function of the Supreme Court as the ultimate dispenser of justice."
And the UP Law Dean who led that letter to the Supreme Court? Walang iba po kundi ang nagsulat ng desisyon na ating pinag-uusapan.
Dear colleagues, I believe this decision is of the highest public interest, whose consequences will echo through time and history. Maraming taon mula ngayon, pag-aaralan at hihimayin ito ng lahat - mula mga estudyante, mga journalist, mga political analyst, mga academics, at, higit sa lahat, ng ating mga kababayan.
One day... and this day WILL COME... history will judge all of us based on our actions today, August 6, 2025. When history comes to remember... let's hope we stood where it mattered. That even in the face of doubt, we did what was right and just.
With deep respect for the Supreme Court and all institutions of our country, Mr. President, I therefore second the motion to table the motion to dismiss the impeachment complaint until the decision of the Supreme Court has attained finality. Maraming salamat, 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.
