A MEMBER of the prosecution panel in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment case echoed former senator and congresswoman-elect Leila de Lima view that the Senate’s inaction violates the 1987 Constitution.
Over at the Senate, opposition Senator Risa Hontiveros also slammed the continued delays in the impeachment process, likening it to a basketball game without a shot clock. “Convening as an impeachment court and commencing trial is expressly mandated by the Constitution. And yet this process has been delayed and dragged on for four long months,” she said.
Meanwhile, Senate President Francis Escudero reacted to the criticisms saying the June 11 schedule to deliberate on the matter was never questioned.
“The inaction and failure of the Senate to proceed with the impeachment trial is against the Constitution and a betrayal of the people’s will,” Iloilo Rep. Lorenz Defensor told reporters in Filipino.
“It is an abandonment of the Senate’s duty to exact accountability and sets a bad example to the young and future leaders of our country,”Defensor stressed.
He was responding to the statement of De Lima, nominee of the party-list Mamamayang Liberal (ML), who will sit as a member of the House prosecution panel.
According to De Lima, the Senate, under Senator Francis Escudero as President, violated the Constitution with its apparent and deliberate inaction on the Duterte impeachment case.
“That has always been my position that (it violates) what the Constitution says,” De Lima had said.
The Constitution mandates that the Senate impeachment trial must be held “forthwith” after the House of Representatives transmits the articles of impeachment. The Lower Chamber had already fulfilled its constitutional duty in February, observers said.
“Forthwith is forthwith. It has been delayed multiple times. It has been postponed several times.
The House of Representatives and the Senate cannot keep passing the blame… but what is clear is that the Constitution lays it out,” De Lima pointed out.
“For me, at this stage, the impeachment trial, the convening of the impeachment accord, and proceeding with the trial are not optional,”Hontiveros said.
She asserted that the delay was not about procedure, but obstruction disguised as protocol.
She maintained that the Senate has a duty to uphold accountability and cannot ignore its constitutional role.
“I’ve been called eager, aggressive, impatient, “atat”. But the simple truth is this: We are not rushing. In fact, we have been waiting. The Filipino people are waiting. And we believe four months is more than enough,” Hontiveros said.
Escudero said Monday’s plenary discussions merely reflected differing views on whether the process would proceed, but no formal motion was filed.
“From the very beginning…I’ve said that the only thing the 19th Congress can do is issue a summons because, according to our rules, the respondent, Vice President Sara, has ten days to answer, and at that time she hadn’t even asked for an extension, so the time ran out quickly, whether it was one or two weeks, for us to proceed with the trial,” Escudero told reporters.
He noted that the Senate needed time to complete pending legislative work before tackling the impeachment trial.
He also pointed out that the mandate of House prosecutors will lapse with the end of the 19th Congress on June 30.
Escudero stressed that an impeachment court requires both prosecution and defense to be present and active.
He warned that the 20th Congress may accept or reject the current proceedings when it convenes, potentially altering the process entirely.
“In the end, if anyone raises objections or disagrees, the matter can be brought before the Supreme Court, which will ultimately decide with finality who is right and who is wrong,” he said.
