Marcoleta bats for dismissal of VP Sara impeachment raps; Sotto insists SC ruling not yet final

Manila Bulletin

Neophyte Senator Rodante Marcoleta on Wednesday, August 6, moved for the Senate's dismissal of the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte.  Senate Minority Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III, however, insisted that the Supreme Court’s decision to declare the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional, although immediately executory, is not yet final.  READ: https://mb.com.ph/2025/08/06/marcoleta-bats-for-dismissal-of-vp-sara-impeachment-raps-sotto-insists-sc-ruling-not-yet-final  Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5664f6TkaeHgwBly50DWZQ/join  Subscribe to the Manila Bulletin Online channel! - https://www.youtube.com/TheManilaBulletin   Visit our website at http://mb.com.ph Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/manilabulletin Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/manila_bulletin Instagram: https://instagram.com/manilabulletin Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@manilabulletin  #ManilaBulletinOnline #ManilaBulletin #LatestNews

Transcript

00:00Mr. President, when the Supreme Court negates the actions of a co-equal branch of government,

00:07it does not assert its superiority.

00:11Instead, it upholds the supremacy and the dominance of the fundamental law of the land, the Constitution.

00:20And so the Supreme Court has already spoken.

00:24The last arbiter of law, it says the complaint is unconstitutional.

00:30It's buoyed up in issue.

00:32It's violative of due process.

00:35The Senate never acquired jurisdiction over this.

00:38It is immediately executory.

00:40On that note, Mr. President, I respectfully move that impeachment complaint be dismissed.

00:47I so move, Mr. President.

00:48So listening to the privileged speech of the distinguished gentleman from Tarlac,

00:53the basis of your motion to dismiss is the Supreme Court's decision,

01:00which is now pending appeal by virtue of the MR or the motion for reconsideration filed

01:09last Monday by the House of Representatives.

01:15Is it not?

01:18Your Honor.

01:18The question, whether is it subject to a motion?

01:23Yes, your basis for your motion to dismiss is based on the Supreme Court decision that

01:29the so-called impeachment is unconstitutional, based on their decision.

01:36Yes, Mr. President.

01:38You know, that's very, very clear and categorical.

01:40Correct.

01:42The Supreme Court decision, Mr. President, although immediately executory, is not yet final.

01:51Thus, appealable.

01:54Ngayon, naka-appeal na.

01:56So may I ask the gentleman, what will happen if we prematurely dismiss the case

02:12and the Supreme Court subsequently grants the MR and reverses its own decision?

02:20The question, Mr. President, is speculative.

02:23Yes, yes. May I have a speculative answer, Mr. President?

02:30We cannot speculate. We can only guess, second guess, because on the basis of our experience

02:37as a practicing lawyer, Mr. President, ito pong ganitong klaseng desisyon, talaga pong

02:44wala na pong kaduda-duda na kahit po mag-file pa tayo ng motion for reconsideration.

02:50We are hoping against hope. It is as if we are wishing for the moon.

02:56Palagayin nyo po, palagayin nyo lang po merong isa na nag-reverse.

03:02Hindi rin po ma-overturn.

03:05Kasi po ang kailangan po ninyo ay walo ang mag-reverse.

03:09Sa inaakala po ba ninyo, merong kayong makukuwang walo na pumirma doon sa unanimous desisyon

03:17na babaligtarin po nila yung kanyang sarili.

03:20Kaya napakahirap pong mag-speculate, Mr. President.

03:23I will accept the answer of the gentleman, but I have done my research, Mr. President.

03:31And to remind everyone, the reversal of the Supreme Court's own decision is not impossible,

03:40even in landmark cases.

03:44In the case of Labugal, Bilaan Tribal Association Incorporated,

03:51versus Victor Ramos, GR No. 127882, December 1, 2004,

04:00questioning the constitutionality of Republic Act 7942, or the mining law.

04:07The Philippine mining law.

04:11The Supreme Court granted the MR, reversing and setting aside its earlier ruling.

04:19And also, Mr. President, just a few days ago,

04:23just a few days ago, the Supreme Court reversed its own ruling

04:28on the definition of a stockholder.

04:31Mr. President, this is the case of Lili Lopez versus Lolito Lopez

04:37with GR No. 25497-957-58.

04:43So, may kasabihan po tayo,

04:46ang tumatakbo ng matulin,

04:48kung mga tinig ay malalim,

04:51kaya dapat siguro pag-isipan muna natin

04:54kung tama ba na bago mag-desisyon ang Supreme Court,

04:59basta ibasura na natin ang kaso na ito?

05:02Unang-una po, Mr. President, gusto kong malaman,

05:05yung pong mga kasong sinabi nyo,

05:07unanimous decisions po ba lahat?

05:09I am not sure about that.

05:14But one thing I can say is that

05:17if there is a mistake,

05:20a unanimous decision could become a unanimous mistake.

05:25Wala pa pong nangyaring gano'n, Mr. President?

05:28At saka po tayo pag nananakbo.

05:31Ako po ay nakasapatos at saka sa kalsada,

05:33kaya hindi po akong matitinig.

05:34Well, Mr. President,

05:37there's always a first time.

05:41Regardless of whether it's unanimous or not,

05:43unanimous decision does not bar an appeal

05:46or a reversal, Mr. President.

05:48That is one thing for sure.

05:50Now, secondly,

05:54where is the ball, Mr. President?

05:57Or the, meaning the impeachment case itself?

06:00Is it in the Senate or in the impeachment court?

06:06Didn't the impeachment court throw it back,

06:09remanded, returned to the House of Representatives?

06:13So what are we dismissing in the Senate?

06:17Kung wala sa atin ng kaso.

06:20Can we continue hearing the case

06:22and dismissing it without the impeachment case in our hands?

06:26Can we throw the ball out

06:28when the ball is not in our possession?

06:33Siguro naman,

06:34dapat ikang ay magkaroon tayo

06:36ng tinatawag nating

06:38sense of proper sequencing of moves.

06:43Nasaan po ba

06:44yung impeachment case?

06:47Mr. President,

06:49kanina po,

06:49sa aking clarificatory statement,

06:52Ang sabi ko nga po,

06:55yung ginawa pong initial proceedings

06:57noong 19th Congress Senate,

07:01yun po ay nangyari

07:03sa panahon po ng 19th Congress

07:06at lahat po yun

07:07ay naisantabi lahat

07:10sapagkat natapos nga po

07:13ang termino ng 19th Congress

07:16on June 30, 2024.

07:19Kaya po natin sinasabi,

07:20Mr. President,

07:21na dinidismiss na po natin ngayon

07:25sapagkat tayo po ang

07:28nasa lugar

07:32na sinasabihan

07:33ng Korte Suprema

07:36nung sabihin niyang

07:37ito ay immediately executory.

07:40Sino pong mag-e-execute nun?

07:41Hindi naman po i-execute yun

07:43ng House of Representatives.

07:45Maliwanag naman po

07:46na tayo lamang

07:47ang tinakdaan

07:49ng kataas-taasang hukuman

07:52na gumawa ng paraan

07:53para isantabi na po

07:55ang usaping ito

07:56sapagkat napagtibay nga nila

07:58na ito'y unconstitutional,

08:00void of inicio,

08:03at wala na po tayong

08:04jurisdiction

08:04para dito.

08:06Thank you, Mr. President.

08:10Your Honor, thank you.

08:12But as I said earlier,

08:14it's not because it is

08:15immediate and executory

08:17does not mean

08:19it's not appealable.

08:20Now, to continue,

08:22Mr. President,

08:24I hope you don't mind.

08:25I will be posing a question.

08:28But then,

08:29I will be

08:31doing a manifestation

08:33based on this question

08:35that I will be posing.

08:38So I'm certain

08:39that the gentleman

08:40from Kalalak

08:41has read the 97 pages

08:44ruling of the Supreme Court

08:46to come up

08:47with this motion.

08:50So,

08:51the question is,

08:53must we agree

08:55on the statement

08:57of the decision

08:59of the Supreme Court

09:00on page 3,

09:02page 56,

09:04as basis

09:05that the one-year ban

09:07has set in?

09:10With that question,

09:12allow me to proceed

09:13with my manifestation

09:14with your permission,

09:16Mr. President.

09:19For the benefit

09:20of our colleagues,

09:21my colleagues,

09:23the last paragraph

09:25of page 3 states

09:27that,

09:28quote,

09:29since the 19th Congress

09:32terminated,

09:33the three impeachment

09:35complaints

09:36became enacted upon,

09:38end of quote.

09:40Again,

09:41this was reiterated

09:43in page 56,

09:46second paragraph

09:47of Roman numeral 5.

09:51It says,

09:52quote,

09:52the House of Representatives,

09:56however,

09:57was unable

09:58to act

09:59on the first

10:00three impeachment

10:01complaints

10:01because of the

10:03adjournment

10:04of the 19th Congress.

10:06To continue,

10:07for constitutional

10:09purposes,

10:11the first

10:12three complaints

10:13were effectively

10:14dismissed.

10:16In both

10:17instances,

10:18Mr. President,

10:19the Supreme Court

10:22was referring

10:23to the February

10:245,

10:252025

10:26adjournment,

10:27but they have,

10:30excuse me,

10:32erroneously

10:32believed

10:34that

10:36the said

10:37adjournment

10:38is the same

10:39adjournment

10:40with the

10:41Cine-Dia

10:41adjournment

10:42that ends

10:43a Congress.

10:45It is not.

10:47February 5

10:48did not

10:50terminate

10:50the 19th Congress

10:52as stated

10:53in the decision.

10:56The Cine-Dia

10:56adjournment

10:57of the 19th Congress

10:59was on June 13,

11:012025,

11:03where in the

11:04last session

11:04day

11:05was last

11:07June 11.

11:09Mr. President,

11:11and for the

11:12information

11:12of the public,

11:15there is a

11:15world of

11:16difference

11:17between

11:17adjournment

11:19versus

11:20adjournment

11:21Cine-Dia.

11:21Sa atin,

11:27pag nag-adjourn

11:28tayo for the

11:28Christmas break,

11:30nag-adjourn

11:31for the

11:31Easter break,

11:33nag-adjourn

11:33for the

11:35election period,

11:37nothing

11:37dies.

11:40Treaties,

11:41bills,

11:42resolutions,

11:43anything filed

11:44continues.

11:45It does not,

11:46it is never

11:47archived.

11:51Well,

11:51perhaps the

11:54lawyers of

11:55the ponentes

11:57did not realize

11:58that or

11:58they were not

11:59familiar

11:59with the

12:00rules of

12:01Congress.

12:03As I said,

12:04this is a

12:04world of

12:04difference.

12:06Now,

12:06this is a

12:06transcendental

12:07case,

12:08unlocking

12:09constitutional

12:10issue.

12:12Wala man lang

12:13oral arguments,

12:14or at the

12:15very least,

12:16a consultation

12:17with some

12:18members of

12:19Congress,

12:20or members

12:21of the

12:23bar,

12:23na nakakaintindi

12:24ng rules

12:25ng Congress

12:25regarding

12:27the procedure.

12:27in that

12:29matter

12:29alone,

12:30Mr.

12:30President,

12:31kasabihan

12:32ninyo

12:33mga

12:33lawyer,

12:35falsos

12:35omnibus,

12:36falsos

12:37unos,

12:38falsos

12:39omnibus,

12:42mistake in one,

12:45mistake in all.

12:46in that

12:48manner,

12:49they wouldn't

12:50have decided

12:51based on

12:52their

12:52unfamiliarity

12:53with the

12:54legislative

12:55process.

12:57Eh,

12:57may mali

12:57agad eh.

12:59Pati ba

13:00legislative

13:00rules natin

13:01gusto nilang

13:01palitan?

13:03Ganun ba

13:03yun?

13:05Maybe,

13:06maybe not

13:07everyone

13:07may

13:08appreciate

13:10the

13:11importance

13:11of the

13:12legislative

13:13calendar

13:13of Congress,

13:14but

13:15us.

13:16It is a

13:17big deal.

13:18That's why

13:19I'm

13:19stressing

13:19this point.

13:21Kung

13:21current

13:22joint

13:22resolution

13:23pa nga,

13:24when we

13:24approve

13:24this

13:25calendar,

13:26only to

13:26be

13:27misinterpreted

13:28and used

13:29erroneously

13:30in this

13:30case,

13:31nag-adjourn

13:31daw yung

13:3219th

13:32Congress,

13:36kaya

13:36na-archive

13:37lahat.

13:39Now,

13:42may

13:43kina-copya lang,

13:43kopya,

13:44mamali pa.

13:44Sabi nga

13:45kanina

13:45nung ating

13:46distinguished

13:48gentleman

13:48from

13:49Tarlac.

13:50Hilaw.

13:52Hilaw yung

13:53complaint.

13:54Hilaw din yung

13:54decision.

13:56In addition

13:57to this

13:58factual

13:58error,

13:59Mr.

13:59President,

14:00it can be

14:01seen in the

14:02website

14:03of the

14:04House of

14:04Representatives

14:05that the

14:07three

14:07impeachment

14:08complaints

14:09were referred

14:11to the

14:11committee and

14:12rules

14:12and were

14:14consigned

14:15to the

14:15archives

14:16on February

14:176,

14:19not February

14:205,

14:21as claimed

14:22in page

14:2278 of the

14:24decision.

14:26Nag-housekeeping

14:27lang ang house,

14:28kaya in-archive,

14:30hindi to end

14:31the Congress.

14:32this archiving

14:35were not the

14:37results of the

14:37ending of the

14:3819th

14:39Congress,

14:39but because of

14:41the fact that

14:41the fourth

14:42complaint

14:42were

14:45already

14:46filed

14:46and

14:48transmitted

14:48to the

14:49CNN.

14:51Eh,

14:51dito pa lang,

14:51Mr.

14:52President,

14:52eh,

14:53pilit-na-pilit

14:53ng patunayan

14:54na barred

14:55ang fourth

14:55complaint.

14:57Kapag

14:58ayaw,

14:58may dahilan.

15:00Kapag gusto,

15:01may paraan.

15:04Now,

15:05to continue,

15:07Mr.

15:08President,

15:08and this

15:09is very

15:10much

15:10related.

15:15The

15:16Supreme

15:17Court,

15:19by the

15:20way,

15:20if it

15:21is wrong,

15:22if the

15:23complaint

15:23done by

15:25the House

15:25of Representatives

15:26was wrong,

15:28we cannot

15:29correct a

15:30wrong with

15:31another

15:31wrong.

15:33The

15:34Supreme

15:34Court

15:34essentially

15:35amended the

15:37Constitution

15:37by

15:38removing

15:38the third

15:39mode

15:39of filing

15:40impeachment

15:40complaint.

15:43This

15:44third

15:46and

15:48speedy

15:49mode

15:49was

15:51enshrined

15:52there for a

15:52reason.

15:54In times

15:55that there is

15:56an urgent need

15:57to impeach

15:57a person

15:58who is

15:59influential

16:00and powerful

16:01and may

16:03use his

16:03position

16:04to evade

16:05the law.

16:06The third

16:07mode,

16:08which is the

16:09fastest way,

16:10was provided

16:11in the

16:11Constitution.

16:13Why don't

16:14you ask

16:16the authors

16:18of this

16:19provision

16:19in the

16:20Constitution?

16:20Constitutionalist

16:25or

16:25delegates

16:26Munsud

16:27as

16:27Cuda

16:28Sarmiento.

16:33So,

16:33Mr.

16:34President,

16:36continuing,

16:38if the

16:38Supreme

16:39Court is

16:39now changing

16:40the meaning

16:40of initiating,

16:42then at the

16:43very least,

16:43please apply

16:46it

16:46prospectively.

16:50However,

16:51they are

16:51applying

16:51this new

16:52ruling

16:52retroactively,

16:54which is

16:55a violation

16:56of the

16:56doctrine

16:57of

16:57operative

16:58facts.

17:00Kung ganito

17:00kanilang

17:01kagustuhan,

17:02at susundin

17:04natin,

17:04basta-basta,

17:06apektado

17:07din dito

17:07yung nakarang

17:08impeachment,

17:09the impeachment

17:10proceedings.

17:11In the

17:11words of

17:12retired

17:12Supreme

17:13Court

17:14Senior

17:15Justice

17:16Antonio

17:17Carpio,

17:18I quote,

17:21the

17:21said

17:21Supreme

17:22Court

17:22decision

17:23practically

17:24voided

17:25the

17:26impeachment

17:27proceedings

17:27against

17:28former

17:28President

17:29Joseph

17:30Estrada

17:30and

17:31former

17:31Chief

17:32Justice

17:32Renato

17:33Corona.

17:36Pag gusto

17:36talaga,

17:37may paraan.

17:39Pag

17:39may

17:40ayaw,

17:41may

17:41dahilan.

17:42Pero

17:43huwag

17:43naman

17:43sana

17:44pati

17:44sa

17:44manganitong

17:45bagay

17:46that

17:46will

17:46ultimately

17:47affect

17:48future

17:48impeachment

17:49and

17:50legislative

17:50rules

17:51and

17:51proceedings.

17:53Sa atin

17:54yun eh.

17:54I've

17:56read

17:56the basis

17:58for the

17:59retroactive

17:59application

18:00of the

18:00new

18:01definitions

18:01because

18:02the

18:02Senate

18:03now

18:03has not

18:04acquired

18:04jurisdiction

18:05yet.

18:06Mr.

18:09Mr.

18:09President,

18:09ano

18:10tawag

18:10natin

18:10sa

18:11nag-constitute

18:12kayo

18:12as an

18:13impeachment

18:13court?

18:15Nag-robe

18:16pa

18:16kayo?

18:18He

18:18even

18:18sent out

18:19summons.

18:21Ano yun?

18:22June

18:229,

18:23the

18:24Senate

18:25President

18:25took

18:25his

18:25oath.

18:27June

18:2710,

18:27nag-convene

18:28at

18:28impeachment

18:29court.

18:30Ni-remand

18:31to the

18:33House of

18:34Representatives.

18:36Tapos yung

18:37issue

18:38of the

18:39summons

18:39to the

18:40defense.

18:41Ano po

18:42tawag dun?

18:43Hindi

18:43nag-convene?

18:46Baka

18:46hindi

18:46nabalitaan

18:47ng

18:47Supreme

18:48Court

18:48na

18:48hindi

18:50nag-convene.

18:51Kaya

18:51naisabi

18:52nila yan.

18:53So,

18:54now,

18:55just an

18:55observation.

18:56I will

18:56try to

18:58shorten

19:00this,

19:01Mr.

19:01President.

19:02Just an

19:02observation,

19:03Mr.

19:03President.

19:05Well,

19:05not only

19:06myself,

19:07but several

19:07lawyers

19:08mentioned

19:08this to

19:09me,

19:09including

19:10my

19:10godson,

19:12former

19:12Senate

19:12President,

19:13Aquilino

19:14Pimentel

19:14III.

19:16Naguluhan

19:17sila sa

19:17pagkakasulat

19:18ng

19:18decision.

19:20It is

19:20incoherent

19:21and some

19:22parts are

19:22off-topic,

19:23sabi nila.

19:25Para bang

19:25pinag-tagpi-tagpi,

19:27basahin nyo

19:27mabuti.

19:28Uli,

19:28ang damang,

19:28gagaling ng

19:29mga

19:29abogado rito,

19:30basahin nyo.

19:30It even

19:32quoted the

19:33entire

19:34Article 11

19:35of the

19:35Constitution

19:36not only

19:37once,

19:38but twice.

19:40It seems

19:40there were

19:41two

19:41ponentes.

19:43Para

19:43dalawa

19:44author

19:44rito.

19:46Well,

19:47that is

19:47there and

19:48my

19:48observations,

19:49just an

19:50observation.

19:51So,

19:52Mr.

19:52President,

19:53the

19:53personalities

19:54in this

19:55present

19:55impeachment

19:56case

19:56is of

19:57no

19:57moment

19:57to

19:57me.

19:58the

19:58vice

19:58president

19:59is a

20:00friend

20:00of

20:00mine.

20:00The

20:00former

20:02president,

20:03President

20:04Duterte,

20:05has been my

20:05friend since

20:061988.

20:07Everybody knows

20:08that.

20:09What I'm

20:09pointing out

20:10is the

20:12danger of

20:13outright

20:13dismissing the

20:15impeachment

20:15proceedings

20:16by virtue of

20:18a decision

20:19that is not

20:21yet final

20:21and still

20:22pending

20:23appeal.

20:26Justice

20:26Leode

20:27himself

20:27said,

20:28Mr.

20:28President,

20:29I quote,

20:30the

20:30Supreme

20:30Court

20:31is not

20:31perfect.

20:32Citizens

20:33and

20:33academics

20:33certainly

20:34have the

20:34right to

20:35call

20:35attention

20:35to the

20:36fallibility

20:37of the

20:37courts.

20:38Tama

20:39po yun.

20:40There is

20:41no

20:41perfect

20:41institution.

20:43Even

20:43Supreme

20:44Court

20:44ka,

20:45pwede

20:45mag-commit

20:45ng

20:45grave

20:46abuse

20:46of

20:47discretion

20:47or

20:48culpable

20:49violation

20:50of the

20:50Constitution.

20:51a case

20:53decided

20:54unanimously

20:55does not

20:56mean that

20:57it is

20:57infallible.

21:00For all

21:00we know,

21:01it is a

21:02unanimous

21:02mistake.

21:04That,

21:05again,

21:05can be

21:05corrected

21:06by setting

21:07aside and

21:08reversing

21:08prior

21:09pronouncements.

21:11Again,

21:12they have

21:12filed,

21:13the HRP

21:13has the

21:15Office of

21:15the Solicitate

21:17General

21:18filed the

21:19MR

21:19last

21:20Monday.

21:20in this

21:22regard,

21:23we shall

21:24wait for

21:24the

21:24resolution

21:24of the

21:25MR.

21:26Please,

21:27let us

21:27allow and

21:29give chance

21:29to the

21:30Supreme

21:30Court to

21:30rectify

21:31its

21:32decision,

21:32which

21:32contains

21:34clear and

21:34blatant

21:35errors.

21:36For

21:37their

21:37sake,

21:38and for

21:38the sake

21:39of

21:39future

21:40proceedings,

21:42let us

21:43not

21:43dismiss

21:44forthwith.

21:47And in

21:47that

21:47light,

21:50considering

21:50the

21:51motion of

21:51the

21:51gentleman

21:52to

21:52motion

21:52to

21:53dismiss,

21:54I move

21:55to table

21:55the

21:55motion

21:56to

21:56dismiss.

21:58A

21:58motion to

21:58table is a

21:59higher

22:00precedence than

22:01a motion to

22:01dismiss.

22:02Thank you,

22:03Mr.

22:03President.

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended