Impeach trial not dependent on the whim of Senate president 鈥� De Lima
MANILA, Philippines — “The Constitution did not leave the time period for holding the impeachment trial upon the whim of the Senate President.”
These were the words used by former Sen. Leila de Lima when she argued that the impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte must be conducted immediately upon the documents’ transmittal from the lower chamber.
In a Facebook post on Wednesday, De Lima explained that public clamor is no longer necessary to push for the trial.
READ: Escudero: Senate should ‘not rush’ to finish impeachment process
“If public clamor is still needed for the Senate to immediately hold an impeachment trial after the House files the Articles of Impeachment, then the Constitution would have mandated a plebiscite,” she said.
READ: Chua: We’re not rushing Senate, but Constitution says ‘forthwith’
Article continues after this advertisement“But the Constitution did not. It said that trial by the Senate shall forthwith follow, meaning immediately. The Constitution did not leave the time period for holding the impeachment trial upon the whim of the Senate President,” she emphasized.
Article continues after this advertisementSimilar to what was voiced by Senate Minority Leader Koko Pimentel, de Lima said the term “forthwith” as underscored in the Philippine constitution pertaining to the conduct of an impeachment trial means “immediate,” thus the chamber is mandated to hold the trial as immediately.
“At anu namang kalokohan na ikukumpara pa si VP Sara kay Kristo para lamang ipagtanggol ang pagdedelay ng Senado sa impeachment trial? It simply shows the Senate President’s bankruptcy of arguments,” she said.
(And what nonsense is it to compare VP Sara to Christ just to defend the Senate’s delay in the impeachment trial? It simply shows the Senate President’s bankruptcy of arguments.)
De Lima aired her remarks after Senate President Chiz Escudero, also on Wednesday, told reporters that he doesn’t believe there is a public clamor for them to convene into an impeachment court now.
The Senate chief particularly noted that “there are people asking for it,” but he emphasized that he doesn’t treat a singular case as clamor.
“Saang libro naman sinabing naging clamor na yung isang kaso. May nakalagay ba sa depinisyon ng clamor at dapat limang kaso, sampung kaso, labing limang kaso, dalawampung kaso bago maging clamor. Iisa pa lang yung kaso. Ang sumusulat lang sa akin, tatlo pa lang. Teka muna, kailan magiging clamor, ilang sulat. Tatlo pa lang. Tatlong sulat, isang kaso clamor na ba yun libro mo? Sa libro ko hindi. Pangalawa, babalik tanawan natin ang panahon ni Jesus. May clamor, napako siya sa krus. Hindi naman ibig sabihin no’n totoo at tama yun,” said Escudero.
(In which book did one say that one case has become a clamor? Is there something in the definition of clamor and there must be five cases, ten cases, fifteen cases, twenty cases before it becomes a clamor? There is only one case.We have so far received three letters and there’s only one case – can that be considered a clamor in your book? Not in my book. Second, let’s look back at the time of Jesus. There was a clamor, he was crucified. That doesn’t mean it’s true and right.)
The Senate’s top leader earlier disclosed that the impeachment trial against Duterte will commence after President Bongbong Marcos’ fourth State of the Nation Address in July.
President Marcos himself previously said that he would willingly call a special session of the Senate to tackle the impeachment of Duterte if the upper chamber asks for it.
But Escudero already made clear that he has no intentions of requesting for a special session, maintaining that “it is not one of the reasons” to call for such a thing.
/2032393/marcos-will-call-special-session-if-asked-by-senate
