‘Inaction, not archiving, would have been better Senate move’

MANILA, Philippines — Instead of archiving the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte, the Senate should have opted for “inaction” while waiting for the Supreme Court to decide on a motion for reconsideration on its ruling declaring the case against her unconstitutional, Sen. Panfilo Lacson said yesterday.

For former minority leader Aquilino Pimentel III, the senators should have adopted a motion to “defer action on the original or amended motion” to dismiss or archive.

In an interview with dwIZ, Lacson said he abstained from voting for or against archiving the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte because he neither wanted to defy the Supreme Court nor bury the case without waiting for the appeals to be resolved.

“The best action the Senate could have made was inaction, not to act. Although it’s immediately executory, we complied by not moving, by not doing any action,” Lacson said.

“So if we didn’t act, there could not have been defiance of the SC order,” he added.

But with the Senate voting to archive the case and consigning it to the “dead file,” it could still be retrieved and revived in the event of a reversal of the Supreme Court’s controversial decision.

But reviving the case could present another hurdle as it might be put again to a vote, and the 19-4-1 vote to archive is an indication of how another nominal voting could turn out.

“Getting it archived is OK, but the problem with archive is it can spark another round of debate,” he said.

“Let’s say it’s dead but can be resuscitated, can be a Lazarus if ever. That’s how they call it if an issue being discussed is archived – the immediate impression is it’s dead,” Lacson added.

But with the Supreme Court ordering all parties to comment on the motions for reconsideration, it can be an indication that it is open to revisit the case due to alleged factual errors, he said.

“I’m just speculating, but it’s not everyday that parties have been asked to comment on a unanimous decision,” he said.

Lacson also criticized his colleagues for showing their political colors in explaining their votes.

He was asked about the speeches made by Senate President Francis Escudero and Sen. Imee Marcos, who both called out the House of Representatives for reportedly allowing itself to be used by those with political ambitions in impeaching the Vice President.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, during nominal voting, also thumbed down the Vice President’s impeachment by calling on Duterte’s critics to just beat her in the 2028 national elections instead of pushing for her removal from office.

“We’re collegial. I would say there was violation of inter-parliamentary courtesy by our majority. If you would ask me, there’s no need for that; what’s being discussed is legality,” he maintained.

“Let’s not inject things like ‘just beat her in 2028.’ It’s not part of the discussion,” he added.

Also in an interview with dwIZ, Pimentel said the Senate should have opted to defer action on the impeachment case while awaiting an SC ruling on the motion for reconsideration.

Pimentel, who had pushed for the immediate trial of Duterte, lamented that the current senators were “excited” about either dismissing or archiving the case, but had not shown the same vigor in “proceeding to trial forthwith” as required in the Constitution – when the Articles of Impeachment were transmitted by the House of Representatives to the Senate last February.

The Supreme Court also did not explicitly order the Senate to either archive or dismiss the case, Pimentel said.

“I wish nobody should have taken action because if you analyze the SC decision – although it was stated it was immediately executory – did the court ask the Senate to do something? There was no such order, but the Senate was excited to do something,” Pimentel said.

“It’s sad. Many of our countrymen are puzzled with the action of the Senate. Why were they so excited about one thing but were not so about another,” he said.

Pimentel also agreed that the SC may be serious about revisiting the case after it ordered the Vice President herself to comment on the motion for reconsideration.