Cayetano insists Senate President should preside impeachment trial as VP trial gets underway — ANC

[0:09] Pursuant to Rule 2, Paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials, as amended, we now proceed to the election of the presiding officer of the impeachment court. [0:21] Senator Judge Panfilio-Lakson is recognized for the election. [0:24] Point of order, Mr. Presiding Officer. [0:29] Yes, we recognize the gentleman from Taguik. [0:31] Thank you, Mr. President. [0:32] Mr. President, Mr. Senate President and presiding officer, as the preamble of the Constitution said, imploring the aid of the Almighty God, and as you said yourself, that every stage of this impeachment, we have to make sure na patas, we have to make sure na may due process, we have to make sure that it is fair. [0:58] It is very clear in the Constitution of the Philippines that the presiding officer is the Senate President. [1:08] Section 3, Paragraph 6 of Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution, the Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide. [1:18] All cases of impeachment, when sitting for that purpose, the senator shall be on oath or affirmation. [1:24] When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. [1:30] But shall not vote. [1:32] No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate. [1:37] I will go to that other two-thirds inquiry later on because this is another threshold issue, Mr. President. [1:44] But to further the point of order with the indulgence of Senator Laksun so that we can discuss this intelligently. [1:51] On the final question of whether impeachment, sorry, on the issue of who shall preside, under the Constitution, it may seem that it does not say who should preside. [2:16] But if you look at the records of the Constitutional Commission, number 40, 26 July 1986, the framers deliberately chose the phrase, sorry, Mr. President. [2:29] I am referring to Section 6, Article 11, and then Constitutional Commission, number 41, 27 July 1986. [2:50] The presiding officer, Mr. Treñas, Commissioner Davide, is recognized. [2:54] Thank you, Mr. Presiding officer. [2:56] I have some proposed amendments on Section 3, subparagraph 5. [3:00] The presiding officer, Mr. Treñas, the gentleman may proceed. [3:03] Mr. Davide, who later became Chief Justice, this is without prejudice to whatever amendments may be accepted by the committee when the Aquino amendments will be taken up. [3:12] It would consist in adding a new sentence on line 20 before the phrase, no person shall be convicted, inserted the following, all other cases to be convicted. [3:20] The president of the Senate shall preside. [3:23] The presiding officer, what does the committee say, Mr. Munsoud? [3:27] It is not understood, is it not understood, that when the president of the Philippines is on trial, it is only time when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will preside. [3:36] It is necessary to say that the Senate president shall decide during all the time. [3:40] Presiding officer, Mr. Davide, Mr. Presiding officer, I precisely presented this because we had a distinction when it comes to the Chief Justice Supreme Court. [3:49] But with that clarification, that in all other cases, it should be the president of the Senate who shall preside, I withdraw my amendment. [3:59] So it is but elementary, Mr. President, in statutory, especially construction of the Constitution, that the spirit as well as the letter is followed. [4:09] The spirit of the Constitution is that it is the Senate president who will preside. [4:16] This is not an ordinary statement, dictum, or it was not a capricious statement in the discussion. [4:26] Precisely because the Senate president is elected by the majority. [4:31] As an example, when Senator Pimentel did not like the vote and did not vote with the majority, he offered to resign. [4:39] So the point, Mr. President, is this. [4:42] Number one, institutional integrity. [4:45] We need to protect the legitimacy of these proceedings. [4:48] Even with the substitute presiding officer acts fairly, a conviction or acquittal reached under constitutionally defective process would invite judicial challenge and cast doubt on the validity of the entire trial. [5:03] Do we want to go 30 weeks? [5:05] If we follow the number of days submitted in the pretrial, 62 and 30, and three days every week. [5:13] So 30 weeks yun. [5:15] Then after the 30 weeks, we'll end up in the Supreme Court kasi kung na-question natin kung tama ba kung sinong nag-preside. [5:22] Why is it important? [5:23] Why can't any of the 24 preside? [5:27] Remember, under our very rules, hindi ko na babasahin para mas umikli. [5:31] In our very rules, the presiding officer can decide on the spot or he can throw it to the body or he can call a caucus or whatever you call it to be able to decide. [5:44] And we experienced that during the corona trial. [5:49] And that's one reason why everyone acclaims the late Senate president. [5:55] And really, not only because of how he carried it himself, but how the consensus and how he carried it with the minority. [6:03] Secondly, jurisdiction and regularity. [6:05] The Senate's jurisdiction over an impeachment trial is constitutional. [6:10] The exercise of jurisdiction must conform to the constitution. [6:13] And the Senate's validity adopted impeachment rules. [6:17] We cannot say we're following the constitution, then we will not follow the constitution. [6:21] If the constitution and its framers prescribe who shall preside, who are we to change the constitution here today? [6:28] We cannot enlarge or diminish the constitution arrangement through internal rules or through ad hoc resolution. [6:34] Lastly, due process. [6:37] Kailangan malinaw po sa lahat ng partido, both to the prosecution and the defense, kung ano yung korte, kung ano ang two-thirds, kung ano ang charges, kung sino magpre-preside. [6:51] So kung now, during the first day, we're going to change who's going to preside, and it's against the constitution, what more changes are we going to do in the next few days? [7:00] Ano ang limit ng pwede natin palitan sa constitution at hindi? [7:03] The authority must come from the constitution or the governing law, not from the vote of a tribunal. [7:09] A litigant is entitled to have the case heard by the decision maker, designation by law. [7:16] The law cannot say that ang mag-i-hear kay Sen. Marcoleta ay Sandigan Bayan tapos sa Court of Appeals natin siya dadalin. [7:24] Hindi pwedeng sabihin sa RTC dapat i-hearing si Juan de la Cruz tapos sa Sandigan Bayan natin dadalin. [7:32] Hindi pwedeng sabihin tatlo sila sa CA pero in this case, nagbutuhan kami, isa lang kami mag-i-hearing. [7:37] Proceedings before a judge or hearing officer who lacks the legal authority are invalid, regardless of fairness of the proceedings. [7:48] A judgment rendered by court without jurisdiction is null and void, and may be attacked any time. [7:54] It creates no right and produces no effect. [7:57] It remains basic fact that in law, the choice of the proper forum is crucial, [8:02] as the decision of a court or tribunal without jurisdiction is a total nullity. [8:06] A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. [8:11] All performed pursuant to it and claims emanating from it have no legal effect. [8:16] Tan v. Cinco, GR No. 213054, June 15, 2016, penned by Justice Perlers-Benebe, First Division. [8:27] The constitutional authority, Mr. President, is very clear. [8:30] Now, let's put that aside for a moment. [8:35] But we're not allowed to do that. [8:36] But for a moment, let's put that aside. [8:38] The Constitution is not clear and does not tell us what to do. [8:44] The rules of the Senate says that any amendment should be presented a day before. [8:51] And that's why the then-minority, when I was Senate President, walked out because your contention was, [9:00] when we gave it to the Committee on Rules, kahit mayigit isang araw na at binabalik ng rules, we did not follow the rules. [9:07] So on the rump session or alleged rump session on June 3, first of all, you did not have a quorum of 13. [9:13] But let's assume, assume for the sake of argument, I'm not giving you that point. [9:20] As far as I'm concerned, it's in the Supreme Court, walang quorum on 12. [9:25] Assuming my quorum on 12, you did not follow the rules. [9:29] There was not a one-day notice for the rules. [9:34] And then if you look at the records, this impeachment court adopted the rules on May 18. [9:42] So that means that it is this impeachment court that now has to adopt any amendment to the rules. [9:53] We did not debate that amendment to the rule. [9:58] We cannot now just change the rules. [10:01] We're here for the opening statements. [10:05] We're here for the trial. [10:06] Are we here to change the rules? [10:08] We're changing the rules here today, Mr. President. [10:10] So, Mr. President, later on I'll ask permission to talk about your two-thirds [10:17] because both the issue of the presiding officer and the issue of what constitutes two-thirds of all members [10:27] is a threshold issue. [10:31] Para maintindihan na lang po ng lahat, lalo po sa mga kababayan natin nanonood, [10:35] Miriam Webster, simple definition, [10:38] A threshold issue is a preliminary question, minimum requirement, or foundation condition [10:48] that must be met or resolved before proceeding to the substantive merits of a case, project, or process. [10:58] In this initial criteria, if this initial criteria is not satisfied, [11:05] further action is typically dismissed or halted. [11:08] I want to avoid that this impeachment trial will be declared null and void. [11:17] I want to avoid walkouts. [11:19] I want to avoid any delays, Mr. President. [11:23] The Senate President is more than capable. [11:26] He said he is willing. [11:28] He said he is ready. [11:30] He has been in many situations in his life that people say you cannot do it. [11:35] But he has done well. [11:37] He has studied. [11:38] So what is the issue? [11:39] Why do we have to vote for a presiding officer, Mr. President? [11:42] Why can't we follow the Constitution? [11:45] So the point of order, Mr. President, is that amending the rules, [11:52] implementing a null and void rule, and violating the Constitution [11:58] will endanger this whole hearing, Mr. President. [12:03] So please rule on the point of order. [12:06] And I hope that the Senate President, who is more than able, will preside. [12:11] Thank you to the gentleman from Taguig. [12:13] Before I express my views on the matter, let me just put into the record the facts [12:23] on when we amended Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure on the impeachment trials. [12:30] On June 3, 2026, Senator Juan Miguel Zuberi proposed Senate Resolution No. 430, [12:37] zero, and that was adopted during that time. [12:42] And then, on the same day, the same resolution was adopted and renumbered to Resolution No. 14. [12:51] It was published on June 9, 2026, in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, as well as Malaya. [12:58] During that time, in June 3, when we amended the rules, [13:02] everyone had the opportunity to express their views regarding the proposed resolution. [13:10] And since no one objected, we adopted Resolution No. 430 [13:15] and renumbered it to Resolution No. 40. [13:20] That is anchored on our Constitution, Article 6, Section 3, Paragraph 8 of the Constitution, [13:30] that the Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment [13:34] to effectively carry out the purpose of this section. [13:39] So, my view, to the good gentleman, let me just finish, sir. [13:47] My view is this resolution has been duly approved [13:51] and everyone was given an opportunity to discuss that, to object. [13:57] However, no one objected to that resolution and it was duly approved by the body. [14:06] So, any discussion regarding this resolution should be discussed in plenary [14:17] when the Senate convenes as a legislative body. [14:21] In the past precedents, during the ERAP impeachment, November 15, 2020, [14:33] the body, as well, approved the rules of impeachment in plenary. [14:39] During the Corona impeachment, March 23, 2011, [14:47] once again, Resolution No. 39 was adopted in plenary. [14:53] So, any issues pertaining to this resolution should be discussed in plenary [15:01] when the Senate convenes as a legislative body. [15:04] So, that is the position of the Chair and the view of the Chair on this matter. [15:08] Sir President, first, may I dispute that you used the word fact. [15:13] It is not a fact that the rules were changed [15:16] because it is being disputed that, first, there was no quorum on that day. [15:21] Second, if we are going to amend the rules of impeachment for the impeachment trial in plenary [15:29] under the rules of the Senate, Section 136, second paragraph says, [15:36] the rules may be amended by means of a motion that should be presented at least one day before its consideration. [15:41] It was not presented on June 2. [15:44] So, we did not follow our rules. [15:47] So, a rule that was passed that did not follow our rules, [15:52] or amendment that was passed that did not follow our rules, is void. [15:55] You cannot get anything out of it. [15:58] It is anality. [15:59] So, if today we pass a change in our rules, [16:04] and we do not follow our own rules in changing that rules, [16:07] we cannot follow that rules. [16:08] Secondly, Mr. President, the impeachment court already adopted our rules. [16:15] Iba po ang plenary, tama po kayo doon, I agree with you there. [16:19] Iba po yung impeachment court. [16:21] So, is the impeachment court now hostage or subject to whatever changes the legislative body does, [16:28] and we will not adopt? [16:30] Then, why did we adopt the rules when we took our oath? [16:34] We adopted it because the impeachment court is not powerless to talk about our rules. [16:41] But finally, Mr. President, for the sake of argument, [16:45] just for the sake of argument, [16:47] wag na natin tignan yung mga amendments. [16:49] It's against the Constitution. [16:51] So, can the impeachment court disobey the Constitution? [16:54] If the Constitution says the presiding officer should be the Senate President, [16:58] can we now say na no, pagbutuhan natin kung sino? [17:01] Because if we say that we can, what next will we add to the articles of impeachment? [17:08] Will we lower the bar of the quantum of evidence needed? [17:15] Will we say that baliwala na yung pretrial brief at bahala na si Batman? [17:22] So, Mr. President, I thought that's why we have the rules. [17:26] Because when we have the rules, it dictates fair play. [17:29] And the rule says, it is the Senate President who will preside. [17:34] So, if now we're not going to follow the rules, [17:37] anong pinag-uusapan natin patas? [17:39] Anong pinag-uusapan natin due process? [17:41] Anong pinag-uusapan natin na fairness? [17:45] It is who we chose as Senate President is the political. [17:50] So, we made our case dun na we would have a more fair. [17:55] You made your case, you got the majority. [17:57] Now you got the majority, we will give you all the support, Mr. President. [18:02] But we have to follow the Constitution. [18:05] We cannot have a trial where we do not follow the Constitution, Mr. President. [18:09] I think pinaka-basic po yun. [18:11] San sa Constitution po nakalagay, Mr. President? [18:13] That, ang nakalagay dito po, only in case the President... [18:17] Let me give you a hypothetical. [18:19] God forbid, ha? God forbid. [18:21] God forbid may mangyari sa Pangulong Marcos. [18:24] Maging Pangulong ngayon po, si Sarah Duterte. [18:28] My view is tuloy yung impeachment. [18:31] Pero, ang mag-prepreside na yung Chief Justice. [18:33] O pwede ba tayo mag-botohan na huwag yung Chief Justice ang mag-preside? [18:41] So, how is it possible that today, we're starting out on the wrong foot [18:45] by arguing who will preside when the Constitution already settled it, Mr. President? [18:50] So, I appeal to my colleagues. [18:53] There are a lot of accommodations, there are a lot of things. [18:55] May bigayan talaga dito. [18:58] May botohan, may caucus, may in-camera discussions. [19:01] Pero, pagdating kung sino mag-prepreside na malinaw sa Constitution, [19:05] huwag na natin pag-awayan yun. [19:07] The prosecution is here. I think they're ready. [19:10] The defense is here. I think they're ready. [19:13] Let's give the Filipino people, you know, a fair trial. [19:16] Hindi po fair kung pipiliin natin kung sino ang ano. [19:20] Kahit sinong magaling, kahit ako piliin nyo. [19:23] Hindi ko po tatanggapin yun. Kasi mali po yun. [19:25] Hindi po yun ang nakalagay sa Constitution natin. [19:27] Very, very clear po sa records ng Constitutional Commission. [19:31] Walang makaka-amend doon. [19:32] We are not given any latitude on this matter, Mr. President. [19:37] I appeal to you, Mr. President. [19:39] This is your Senate presidency. [19:41] Thank you. Thank you for that, those views to the good gentleman from Taguig. [19:47] Kanina po, nabanggit ko po na in my manifestation as the Senate President, [19:55] that Resolution No. 39 or the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trial as amended shall continue to apply. [20:04] So in other words, ko rinirecognize nitong impeachment court yung amendments na ginawa ho natin noong June 3. [20:13] At kagaya ho nang nasabi ko ko kanina, the humble view of this presiding officer [20:21] is if there are any discussion on Resolution No. 43 as adopted as Resolution No. 40, [20:29] it should be done in plenary. [20:32] Because doon ho natin in-adapt yung impeachment, rules of impeachment, doon rin ho natin in-amendahan. [20:42] At nabigyan naman po ng oportunidad ang bawat isa para magkomento, magbigay ng pahayag, magbigay ho ng kanilang legal opinion. [20:53] Pero at that time, wala naman po ang nag-object at in-adapt po ng Senado in a legislative body. [21:02] So the position of the Chair, if there are any comments, any legal opinions, any issues, [21:09] it should be done through the legislative body of the Senate. [21:15] Mr. President, there is no conflict, Mr. President. With your permission, Mr. President. [21:19] There's no conflict. If you want to discuss it, in three weeks, may session na tayo. [21:26] So all we have to do today is follow the Constitution. [21:28] You preside, then pagdating ng plenary, then we can debate whether we are allowed to amend the Constitution or not. [21:38] Because, Mr. President, that's why I premise this not as a parliamentary inquiry [21:42] or as a point of information or whatever we may call it. [21:47] That's why it's a point of order. [21:49] A higher point of order than the point of order in the rules is a point of order in the Constitution. [21:53] The Constitution says it is the Senate President who will preside. [22:00] So are we saying now, Mr. President, that the rules can amend the Constitution? [22:04] Is that the ruling of the Chair? [22:06] Before I make my final ruling on this matter, may I recognize the gentleman from Pampanga, Senator Kiko Pangilinan. [22:17] Thank you, Senate President. [22:20] Mr. President, with all due respect, the Constitution does not provide that the Senate President must preside in cases of impeachment trial. [22:34] What the Constitution provides is that when the President is undergoing impeachment, going through the trial, is being tried, [22:45] the Chief Justice must preside. [22:49] Nowhere in the Constitution and the provisions on public accountability and impeachment does it say that the Senate President must preside when the Vice President is under trial or any other impeachable officer. [23:08] And precisely because of this, and precisely because the Constitution likewise allows Congress, not the impeachment court, Congress, to promulgate its own rules, [23:25] which is what the Senate did in June 3. [23:29] We promulgated, we proposed amendments to the rules under our rulemaking power, [23:34] which, by the way, was subsequently ratified when we convened in a special session on June 17. [23:45] The June 3 journal was ratified unanimously on June 17 when we had our special session. [23:55] And in the June 3 minutes and the journal, precisely, we approved the amendments to the rules. [24:03] This was further ratified on June 17. [24:07] Therefore, it is considered regular. [24:13] The presumption of regularity now comes into fore. [24:18] But having said that, Mr. President, the good gentleman from Taguig has brought this matter before the Supreme Court. [24:26] And we agree with the point earlier raised by the Senate President. [24:29] This matter should be either discussed in the Senate, in plenary, as a legislative body, [24:38] or if he has questions which may in fact turn out to be valid, he has brought this matter before the Supreme Court. [24:48] And therefore, this impeachment court is not the venue for this debate, Mr. President. [24:53] If there is anyone who is out of order, with due respect, I think the proper process is the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. [25:02] There is no temporary restraining order. [25:05] There was a request for a status quo ante order. [25:08] It was not granted. [25:09] And therefore, the presumption of regularity behooves us as an impeachment court to proceed. [25:18] And finally, Mr. President, allow me to reiterate, the point of order is improper. [25:28] In fact, the debate on this matter here in the impeachment court is out of order, Mr. President. [25:36] So, Mr. President, before you decide, Mr. President, the Chair has already ruled. [25:41] Mr. President, before you rule, the Chair has already ruled. [25:44] Mr. President wants to ask for the floor. [25:47] Just two minutes. [25:47] And may I respond to Senator Panglilin. [25:50] I'll allow the gentleman from Taguig to rebut for two minutes, and then we will make the final ruling. [25:55] I'll allow the gentleman from Taguig to rebut for two minutes, and then we will make the final ruling.