Villanueva: Speech on the Supreme Court Decision
August 6, 2025
Speech on the Supreme Court Decision
Mr. Senate President, mga kagalang-galang na kasama natin sa Senado:
This representation stands today not just as a senator-judge, but as a member of this institution who took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I'm here to explain my vote - but more importantly, to stay true to that oath: to serve with integrity and give life to the spirit of the law.
ACCOUNTABILITY
Article XI Section 1 of our Constitution provides that "Public office is a public trust" - Ang isang katungkulan sa pamahalaan ay isang tiwalang ipinagkaloob ng mamamayan.
This underscores one of the core principles of democracy, that ultimate political power resides with the people. Thus, the Preamble starts: "We the sovereign Filipino people..." because the government's authority and legitimacy emanates from the people.
Thomas Jefferson encapsulated the expectation from a person holding public office in one sentence: "When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property." Kapalit ng tiwalang ipinagkaloob ng bayan sa isang tao ay ang paglilingkod nang may katapatan sa Saligang Batas at sumasalamin sa mithiin ng bayan na nakapaloob dito. "Pag-aari" ka ng publiko dahil ang bawat galaw at desisyon mo ay hindi para sa sarili, kundi laging para sa bayan.
While due process protects life, liberty, and property, public office is not private property. As Justice Malcolm wrote in Segovia v. Noel, a public position is not owned by its holder. Ang posisyon sa gobyerno ay hindi premyo o personal na karapatan. Ito ay pananagutan at pagtitiwala ng taumbayan.
During the July 26, 1986 discussion of the Constitutional Commission, it was noted that: "A violation of an oath of office is itself a violation of the Constitution, because a public official's oath is in the Constitution."
Thus, accountability is not only a moral imperative - it is a constitutional duty. Public officials are answerable to the people at all times, and the mechanisms of impeachment and oversight exist precisely because no one can claim a vested, personal entitlement to office. Where accountability is demanded, due process must still be observed--ngunit hindi ito dapat maging panangga laban sa makatarungan at lehitimong pagsusuri, o gamitin upang gawing pagmamay-ari ang isang tungkuling pampubliko. Higit sa lahat, hindi ito dapat maging kasangkapan upang takasan ang pananagutan. Wala ni isa ang nakatataas sa pananagutan, lalo na ang mga nasa pinakamataas na posisyon sa ating bayan.
ROLE OF THE SENATE; SUI GENERIS NATURE OF THE IMPEACHMENT
Mabigat ang papel natin sa impeachment. Hindi ito simpleng usaping legal. Desisyon ito na nakabatay sa batas at nagmumula rin sa ating prinsipyo at konsensya. The framers of our Constitution knew this. That's why impeachment decisions are ultimately acts of political and moral judgment, not just strict legal analysis.
Kaya malinaw ang disenyo ng ating Saligang Batas: ang House ang may ekslusibong kapangyarihang magpasimula ng impeachment, at ang Senado ang tanging may kapangyarihang lumitis at magdesisyon. This is a sui generis role: unique, exceptional, and deeply rooted in our democratic system. That is also why both chambers of Congress were given the authority to craft their own Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Cases.
DEFENSE AGAINST CRITICS OF THE REMAND
May mga bumatikos sa pag-remand natin ng Articles of Impeachment sa House ay pag-iwas sa tungkulin. Pero kung susuriin, hindi ito pag-atras. It was a necessary and prudent step towards ensuring that the proper procedure was followed so that our decision as a court will not be marred by legal and constitutional infirmities.
Now we are faced with the high court's decision that tackles precisely that which we hoped to avert when we remanded the Articles of Impeachment. Clearly, today, the Supreme Court's decision in G.R. 278353 is a vindication of the Senate's action.
We have been called many names and ridiculed in the digital court of public opinion. The Senate President would likely agree with this representation that the allegations thrown at us regarding the impeachment and even the decision of the Supreme Court, a matter that we have no participation in, are extremely preposterous and absurd.
But this exercise, while political in nature, is not about personalities, revenge, prevailing sentiments, or personal biases. It is about upholding what is legal and constitutional, and what will hold true in the years that follow.
Let me make one thing clear to our kababayans: We, in the Senate, have never abandoned our mandate in this impeachment proceeding. Ang bawat hakbang po na ating tinahak ay naka-angkla sa kaluluwa ng ating bayan - ang ating inaalagaan at pinoprotektahang Saligang Batas ng Republika ng Pilipinas.
PORTIONS OF THE SC DECISION WE DO NOT AGREE WITH
But as they say, Mr. President: dissent is not a threat to democracy - it is essential to its survival. Kaya doon sa mga pumuna, sa mga nagsabing mali ang naging pasya ng Senado, hindi tama ang ginawa namin, naiintindihan po namin kung saan kayo nanggagaling. And in that same democratic spirit, I now take this opportunity to respectfully air my own dissent to certain portions of the Supreme Court's decision.
While we respect the Court's authority, I believe there are portions of the ruling that may have inadvertently made the already difficult process of impeachment even harder. Impeachment was never meant to be easy, but neither was it designed to be impossible. The framers of the 1987 Constitution deliberately relaxed the rules to empower the people and lower the barriers to initiating accountability against high-ranking officials.
The Constitution even allows any ordinary citizen to file a verified complaint. Ang mababa at mataas na kapulungan ng Kongreso ang nagsisilbing takbuhan ng mamamayan sa mga pagkakataong wasak na ang tiwalang ipinagkaloob ng publiko sa mga iniluklok nito.
And yet, with this decision, we now see new procedural hurdles that were not explicitly required by the Constitution, including the rigid interpretations of due process at the preliminary stage.
These add layers of complication to a process that is already politically and institutionally fragile. Kung hindi natin iingatan, baka mawalan ng saysay ang impeachment - buhay sa papel ngunit patay sa proseso.
This was no accident of drafting. The framers of the 1987 Constitution intentionally relaxed the requirements for initiating impeachment - lowering the vote needed from two-thirds, as required in past Constitutions, to just one-third of all House members.
As explained by the Framers of our Constitution, this was meant to "make it easier, not harder, to hold high public officials accountable." They had lived through a time when power went unchecked and accountability was elusive - kaya sinigurado nilang ang kapangyarihan ay laging may kaakibat na pananagutan.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE
Mr. President, this representation did not come to this decision lightly. We understand and value the necessity of public accountability. Walang sinuman ang dapat mailagay sa pedestal na hindi kayang abutin ng batas. Pero ang pananagutan ay kailangang dumaan sa tamang proseso - isang proseso na hindi lamang makatarungan, kundi naaayon at tumatalima sa Saligang Batas ng Republika ng Pilipinas.
Sa mga ganitong sitwasyon, hindi po naaalis sa aking isipan kung may mga pagkakataon bang maaaring labagin ng Senado ang mga ipinag-uutos ng Korte Suprema. Maaaring halimbawa po nito ay kung may klarong panghihimasok sa internal na Rules of Procedure ng Senado ang Korte Suprema.
Ngunit pagdating sa pagbibigay kahulugan sa nakasaad sa Saligang Batas, tanging ang Korte Suprema lamang ang may kapangyarihan bilang pinal na tagapagpasya.
Article VIII, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution expands the Supreme Court's scope of judicial power by mandating it to "determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."
In the case of Angara vs. Electoral Commission, Justice Jose P. Laurel, who later became the 3rd President of the Republic wrote: "[W]hen the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution..."
Noong tinatalakay ng ating Constitutional Framers ang probisyon sa Konstitusyon patungkol sa proseso ng impeachment, binanggit ng kagalang-galang na Commissioner Dodong Maambong ang isang sipi mula sa isang kaso sa Amerika: "Ang impeachment ay ang unang hakbang sa isang proseso ng pagwawasto. Ang layunin nito ay hindi personal na pagpaparusa sa nasasakdal. Bagkus, ang pangunahing layunin nito ay panatilihin ang pamahalaang naaayon sa Konstitusyon."
This quote captures the heart of what impeachment is meant to be. It is not about personalities or punishment. It is about protecting the very structure of our constitutional democracy. And sometimes, protecting that structure means accepting limits, even when we disagree with how those limits are drawn. In this case, the Supreme Court--as the final interpreter of our laws�has spoken unanimously, decisively, and with finality. It ruled that the impeachment complaint violated the one-year bar rule, the Vice President was denied due process, and that this Senate, as of that moment, had not acquired jurisdiction.
We may not agree with every word of that ruling, but the rule of law is not a matter of convenience. It is the foundation of our democracy. Upholding it, even when it is difficult or unpopular, is what gives this institution its credibility, and our democracy its strength. To ignore it, no matter how justified we may feel, is to risk eroding the very foundation we are sworn to defend - our Constitution.
Kaya po, sa liwanag ng ating Saligang Batas, at bilang paggalang sa pasya ng Korte Suprema--habang kinikilala na may nakabinbing Motion for Reconsideration na isinampa ng House of Representatives, and in adhering to the immediately executory decision rendered by the Supreme Court: I VOTE TO TRANSFER THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT TO THE ARCHIVES.
_______
(Kindly check against delivery)
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.
