Senator-elect Panfilo Lacson on Wednesday said the defense panel should be the one to move to dismiss the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte, and not a senator-judge.
Lacson pointed out that senators acting as judges in the impeachment trial must not only appear, but must act with the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.
“I would like to believe that a motion to dismiss belongs to the defense panel. And where have you seen a judge moving to dismiss a case?” said Lacson, who had served as a senator-judge and may serve in the same capacity, if the impeachment case crosses over to the 20th Congress.
Lacson said it was worse when Sen. Ronald dela Rosa made his call to dismiss the case before the Senate convened into an impeachment court, since the Senate as a legislative body has no right to dismiss an impeachment case.
Even if the move was done after the Senate was constituted into an impeachment court, it is still improper, he said.
“I cannot imagine a judge presiding over a case being the one to move to dismiss it,” Lacson said. “Isn’t it funny to hear a judge moving to dismiss a case he himself is trying?”
“You are sitting as a senator judge, but you already have prejudgment. You haven’t seen the evidence yet, but you already formed a judgment and moved to dismiss the case,” he added.
But Lacson said there may be nothing to gain from having senator-judges inhibit because of prejudgment, saying this could potentially mean a lack of the needed 16 votes, or two-thirds of the 24 senator-judges, to convict.
Meanwhile, Lacson noted that moves to block the impeachment trial may be harmful to the Vice President, since the accusations and allegations against her will remain hanging.
“Some of our countrymen would be thinking the Vice President is guilty because the trial did not push through. But if all pieces of evidence are presented in an impeachment trial, the public will witness the presentation of evidence and draw their own conclusions on whether the Vice President is innocent or not,” he said.
“As potential senator judges, we also want to see the evidence. If it’s not enough, sorry, we have to acquit. But if we see the evidence is strong, sorry to the respondent, but we have to convict,” he added.
