Senate to convene as impeachment court on May 18, Watch Headstart Recap with Rep. Gerville Luistro

[0:00] All right, joining us this morning is House Justice Committee Chairperson, Jervé Luistro. [0:05] Our Representative Luistro, good morning to you, ma'am. [0:09] Good morning, Karen, and good morning to all our viewers. [0:12] All right, please take us behind the scenes. [0:17] 257 votes to impeach the Vice President. [0:21] What went on for those votes to be acquired? [0:26] Well, it is believed, Karen, that it's the evidence that really swayed most of the House [0:36] members to voting in favor of the Articles of Impeachment. [0:40] I remember during my last interview, I mentioned three important things which the House members [0:49] must consider. [0:50] One, of course, is the evidence. [0:53] Second is the party leadership position. [0:56] And third is the conscience. [0:58] And by conscience, it means whatever is the best interest of the Filipino people. [1:06] My realization, Karen, is if the evidence is strong, you will get also the support of the [1:14] party leaders. [1:15] And perhaps even the conscience will favor voting in favor of the impeachment. [1:20] All right. [1:23] Now, a list has come out. [1:25] And I wanted to ask you, an initial list, actually, this was printed, I'd like to say, [1:31] by the Inquirer 14 years ago, 14 hours ago, and two abstained, of course. [1:39] But there were some that voted no. [1:41] Do you have the numbers of how many voted no? [1:44] I think it's 25, more or less. [1:48] 25. [1:49] But in the initial, merong to be determined. [1:53] So it means there was a change, no? [1:56] Merong nungkuna to be determined. [1:58] Yeah, I saw that in the news, that the vote, the yes vote from 255 was corrected to 257. [2:10] But I'm not certain about the no vote and the abstention as to the number. [2:14] So, yung to be determined, would you know what went on? [2:20] What transpired for that to shift into a yes vote? [2:25] Well, perhaps it's because there was a recounting, I believe, no? [2:31] Actually, I'm not approved to this. [2:33] I just saw it in the news that the number was changed from 255 to 257. [2:40] So, I can only presume that they made a recounting, resulting to the increased number of votes for yes, from 255 to 257. [2:51] And then, what you're asking about to be determined, perhaps those votes of some members, which was not determined at the onset. [3:01] That's why the remarks was too determined. [3:03] And I hope that that the same was included already in the new number of votes with respect to yes, no, and the abstention. [3:12] Now, you talked about party leadership as a second factor. [3:16] A PDP Laban was said to essentially make this a loyalty test for its members, [3:26] that those who voted to impeach would not be able to find refuge in PDP Laban or in the party. [3:34] Would you know of any PDP Laban members who went against that mandate? [3:42] I don't know, Karen. [3:43] I haven't checked actually the list of the members who voted against the articles of impeachment. [3:50] But of course, I would anticipate that these are the PDP members. [3:54] But as to who these are, I haven't checked, Karen. [3:57] So, PDP Laban had a party-line decision. [4:02] Were there other parties that had party-line decisions? [4:06] What I know about the voting that happened yesterday was the individuals were given the prerogative to decide on whether to vote yes or no. [4:20] That is with respect to the other parties. [4:22] You're correct about the PDP. [4:24] They have a party position. [4:26] But with respect to the other parties, like Lakas, NPC, NP, PFP, what I always hear is conscience vote. [4:35] Kung ano ang gusto ng individual members. [4:38] But like what I said earlier, kapag pala malakas ang ebidensya. [4:42] It will seem to me, I'm speaking for myself, even the party leaders voted in favor of the articles of impeachment. [4:49] Because for me, the vote or the position of the party leaders matter because it somehow reflects the position of the leadership. [4:55] And of course, the third factor, whatever is the best interest for the Filipino people, it goes together whenever the evidence is strong. [5:05] That is my realization yesterday. [5:07] Yeah. [5:07] And I'm curious, did you see a change in NUP in the beginning of the impeachment? [5:14] NUP issued, right? [5:17] A statement that they would not support it. [5:19] Did you see a shift? [5:20] Yes, because I also saw that interview of DS Roni Puno, in which he said that they will not be supporting the impeachment process. [5:32] But after the April 22 hearing, I saw another interview and he was commenting that the evidence is strong, something like that. [5:39] So for me, it is a factor, really, the evidence that was presented before the Justice Committee, it is the biggest factor that really swayed the House members, leading us to giving us a vote in the affirmative of 257. [5:55] Karen, this is way beyond the number which voted in favor of the first impeachment back in the 19th Congress. [6:02] You will remember that that was part of my sponsorship speech kahapon, it was only 215. [6:09] Kahit ako, nasurprised ako with 257. [6:13] That's way beyond. [6:14] Now, in the first impeachment of Vice President Duterte, there were allegations that the reason, part of the reason, that the 2025 budget was actually compromised, [6:27] was they were in exchange for promises to legislators to actually sign the impeachment. [6:35] I'm sure you've heard that before. [6:37] Narinig nyo na po yan noon. [6:38] Ito, may allegasyon na naman na may mga pinapangako, may mga banta kapag ikaw ay pumirma o hindi pumirma. [6:47] Well, Karen, I can speak only for myself. [6:51] About the 2025 budget, I vehemently denied that the vote in the Articles of Impeachment in the 19th Congress affected our allocation in 2025. [7:03] As a matter of fact, Karen, I was part of the Good Government Committee, the committee which investigated on Confidential Fund. [7:11] I was one of the prosecution panel, and in my district, as much as I recall that the budget was even decreased, [7:22] and I am among the Kongs, na nagkaroon ng, ang distrito namin, nagkaroon din ng mga, for later release, no? [7:30] So, I don't understand why the people are claiming na this serves as a reward, an award, or whatsoever if you support impeachment. [7:41] Kasi, during the 19th Congress, I was part of the prosecution panel, I was part of the Good Government Committee, [7:49] and yet my district suffered from this decrease in budget, in allocation. [7:53] As a matter of fact, mayroon pa nga mga for later release, and up to this time, hindi na nga na-release, no? [7:59] So, ito na naman yung allegasyon for 20th Congress that those who will be supporting will be given a lot of budget, [8:08] and those who will not support will have no budget, I deny that, Karen. [8:12] But I'm speaking only for myself. [8:14] Wala po kumausap sa akin, nakiusap, o nanakot, with respect to my position as Justice Chair, [8:21] in this impeachment proceeding. [8:23] But of course, this applies only as far as I am concerned. [8:26] I don't know, with respect to the other members of the House. [8:29] Okay, now take us through the process. [8:31] The Vice President has already been impeached. [8:34] What about the Articles of Impeachment? [8:37] What is the timetable for that to be sent to the Senate? [8:41] What happens after the voting? [8:44] The Constitution says it must be transmitted immediately to the Senate, no? [8:50] And the Senate, upon presentation of the Articles of Impeachment, [8:55] must convene immediately as well, forthwith, di ba? [8:58] So, I have to check, Karen, if there has been actual transmission already, [9:04] transmittal already, of the Articles of Impeachment. [9:08] I mean the physical copy of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, [9:11] because that is required under the Constitution, no? [9:14] So, according to the Constitution, there must be immediate transmittal, [9:19] and then there will be presentation of Articles of Impeachment. [9:23] Before the Senate, after representation of Articles of Impeachment, [9:26] the Impeachment Court has to convene as such, no? [9:30] And then after that, the trial should begin. [9:33] So, kumbaga, nagbutuhan ka nga pon, [9:36] immediately for you should be by today. [9:40] Tama? [9:40] Yes. [9:41] Oo, dapat by today. [9:42] Now, the Supreme Court has redefined the meaning of forthwith, right? [9:48] In the dictionary, forthwith would mean immediately. [9:52] Sa Tagalog, agad-agad. [9:54] Pero the Supreme Court redefined it in its decision to be within reasonable time. [10:01] So, kumbaga, hindi na nga forthwith yung pagkakaalam natin. [10:04] What to you is within reasonable time? [10:07] What my understanding about that decision of the Supreme Court is, [10:12] they are just recognizing the exclusive prerogative of the Senate [10:17] as to how they are going to apply the word forthwith or immediately, [10:22] depending on the circumstances surrounding the Senate. [10:26] Like kahapon, kaya rin, no? [10:28] We were discussing already, let us transmit. [10:31] We need to transmit. [10:32] That's what the Constitution says. [10:34] Pero kita natin ang gulo sa Senado. [10:36] We do not even know who will be receiving the Articles of Impeachment. [10:42] So, I think that that is the only point of the Supreme Court [10:47] when they use the word reasonable period in interpreting the word forthwith. [10:52] It remains immediate. [10:54] It remains agad-agad. [10:56] It remains madali, the meaning of forthwith. [10:59] However, you have to consider as well the surrounding circumstances of the Senate. [11:04] And the illustration that I can present to you is the situation yesterday [11:08] where we are not certain, [11:10] nag-hahabulan, di ba? [11:12] There was a scramble between the NBI and the Senate security. [11:19] Tapos, walang tao doon sa loob ng session hall for a very long period of time. [11:24] And I think the minority were not at the Senate during that time, no? [11:28] So, you're not certain. [11:30] Paano mo ba it ra-transmit who will be receiving these Articles of Impeachment? [11:34] I think that's the intention of the Supreme Court [11:36] when they made use of the reasonable time, [11:40] depending on the circumstances, surrounding the Senate. [11:43] So, I'll ask you about the Senate later, the Senate leadership. [11:46] But the Supreme Court decision also made a comment on the rules of transmittal. [11:53] So, the Articles of Impeachment must be transmitted by the House [11:56] through a plenary session, [11:58] providing all members with copies of the complaint and evidence. [12:02] Tapos na yun. [12:03] Pero yung transmittal through a plenary session. [12:07] Will that be done today? [12:09] Nagawa ba yun ka ngapon? [12:10] How do you explain that part? [12:12] We were not able to... [12:15] You're talking about the transmittal to the Senate? [12:17] Yes. Yes, ma'am. [12:19] Through the session? [12:20] Okay. [12:21] So, we were not able to do that yesterday, first and foremost. [12:25] The physical copy. [12:25] We're talking about the physical copy. [12:27] Because it's quite late when we were able to conclude [12:31] all the explanation of votes, no? [12:33] And then we conceded also the situation in the Senate. [12:37] So, we will be talking today as to the proper way of transmitting it to the Senate, [12:43] considering as well the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court. [12:46] Oo. [12:47] Now, alam nyo, nagkaroon ng definitions. [12:49] Calendar days, session days. [12:51] Correct. [12:51] You know, kapag yun yung may Justice Committee hearing. [12:54] Pero itong sitwasyon na ito, [12:56] hindi rin naman araw-araw ang session sa Senado. [13:00] What happens then? [13:01] Do we have to transmit it only on the days na may session? [13:05] Or can you transmit it at any point in time? [13:09] I acknowledge, Karen, that there are inconsistencies [13:14] between the existing laws on one hand [13:18] and some Supreme Court decisions on the other hand, no? [13:22] What we do is to always take the conservative side, [13:27] to always take the safer side, [13:29] to always take the more cautious side. [13:31] Which means that if the Supreme Court decision [13:34] is talking about transmittal during the session, [13:36] notwithstanding the fact that impeachment proceedings [13:41] should not be affected by session, [13:44] by breaks, by recess, [13:46] because this is entirely different [13:48] from legislative proceedings, [13:50] as I have pointed out yesterday, no? [13:52] We will definitely be taking the more conservative route, [13:57] that is, we follow the pronouncement of the Supreme Court. [14:00] That is in as far as I am concerned. [14:02] But of course, we will be having a meeting, [14:05] perhaps today, no? [14:06] To address the proper way of transmitting [14:09] the physical copy of the articles of impeachment [14:11] to the Senate. [14:12] Okay. [14:13] Now, the change in leadership in the Senate. [14:16] Some said that this will gravely affect [14:19] the impeachment case of the vice president. [14:24] In handling the leadership right now, [14:27] are supporters of the vice president. [14:30] They were in the minority. [14:33] You have four or five loyalists [14:35] of the Duterte administration, [14:37] now in the majority. [14:39] So, Karen, let us give them the benefit of the doubt. [14:47] If they convene the impeachment court [14:49] within the ambit of the word forthwith, [14:53] within the meaning of the word forthwith, [14:55] which should not be delayed, no? [14:58] Kasi we find no reason why it should not be convened. [15:02] Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. [15:04] After all, this is not purely political. [15:07] This is constitutional as well. [15:09] This is legal. [15:10] And the survey is actually very much [15:14] in favor of pushing for the trial. [15:16] So, I hope they will be very, very conscious about that. [15:21] Most especially the constitutional mandate, no? [15:24] Sinabi naman kahapon ng ating bagong Senate president [15:28] that the impeachment process will still push through. [15:32] He said that. [15:34] So, we are anticipating that indeed [15:37] they will convene the impeachment court [15:40] as soon as the articles of impeachment [15:43] is presented before them. [15:45] So, the convening of the impeachment court [15:47] is a matter of time. [15:49] I believe this was discussed before [15:51] nung panahon ni ERAP. [15:52] Sinabi nila it was convened roughly, [15:55] I think, after two months. [15:57] All right? [15:57] But itong first impeachment [15:59] laban kay Vice President, [16:02] in August 2025, [16:05] Senator Mercoleta officially moved [16:08] to dismiss the impeachment complaint [16:10] against the Vice President. [16:12] He argued it was unconstitutional, [16:15] void from the beginning, [16:16] in violation of the process. [16:19] And some observers have said [16:21] that a supporter may once again [16:24] move to dismiss the impeachment complaint. [16:27] Pwede daw mangyari ulit yun, ma'am? [16:29] Of course, we are not disregarding [16:33] that possibility, no? [16:35] But ultimately, Karen, [16:36] of course, [16:37] pwedeng mangyari yun, [16:38] yun ang nangyari last time, no? [16:40] But what I'm trying to point out is, [16:43] this is the second time [16:44] that the articles of impeachment [16:46] is transmitted to the Senate, no? [16:48] I hope that the senator judges [16:50] or the senators [16:51] will be very much sensitive [16:53] about the sentiment of the public, no? [16:56] After all, this is a constitutional process [16:58] that is very clear in our Constitution. [17:01] As a matter of fact, [17:02] there is no option not to convene. [17:05] The only option is to convene. [17:07] And on a legal perspective, [17:09] if they don't convene, [17:11] to my mind, [17:12] this is a proper subject matter [17:13] of a petition for mandamos [17:15] in order to compel them [17:17] to convene the impeachment court. [17:19] But beyond that, [17:21] it's the sovereign Filipino people [17:22] who have been waiting for answers [17:24] to this impeachment complaint [17:26] since 2024, no? [17:29] I have a lot of faith [17:30] to the senators of the republic, [17:33] regardless of whether they belong [17:35] to the majority [17:36] or to the minority. [17:38] I can honestly say [17:39] that they are very much aware [17:40] of the sentiment [17:41] of the Filipino people now. [17:43] So, I am anticipating, really, [17:46] I am positive [17:47] that they will be convening [17:48] the impeachment court [17:49] and proceed to trial [17:50] of these articles of impeachment. [17:52] Now, Representative Luistro, [17:55] in the last impeachment complaint [17:56] of the Vice President, [17:58] you had Tito Soto [18:00] as the Senate President [18:01] perceived to be friendlier [18:03] to the administration. [18:05] We're reminding the public, [18:07] di ba, [18:07] na opposition na, [18:08] the perceived opposition. [18:10] Duterte sympathizers [18:12] ang nasa liderato [18:14] ng Senado ngayon. [18:15] So, once they convene, [18:17] eto itanong ko, [18:19] once they convene, [18:20] because it's mandatory, [18:22] some are asking [18:23] that what if there's a move [18:25] to dismiss? [18:27] Do you believe [18:28] they are allowed [18:30] as a court? [18:31] They have that flexibility [18:33] to choose to dismiss [18:35] without actually pursuing [18:37] the trial. [18:39] Remember, [18:39] that was argued before. [18:41] Sabi nila, [18:41] eh, kami yung korte, [18:42] pwede naman kami mag-decide [18:44] kung pwede namin i-dismiss. [18:46] Ganun ang trabaho ng korte. [18:48] Can they do that [18:49] in this case? [18:52] Karen, [18:52] the rules of the Senate [18:54] on impeachment [18:54] does not speak about [18:56] dismissal. [18:58] It only speaks about [18:59] conviction [19:01] or acquittal. [19:03] And my interpretation [19:04] to that is, [19:07] dun kasi sa rules of court [19:08] in ordinary criminal proceeding, [19:10] meron tayo tinatawag [19:11] na mga prohibited pleading, [19:13] no? [19:13] If the rule does not provide [19:15] for a motion to dismiss, [19:17] then that means that [19:18] the rules does not [19:19] allow the same. [19:20] And the only mandate [19:21] of the Constitution [19:22] is to proceed to trial. [19:24] And after trial [19:25] is decided the case, [19:28] there are only [19:29] two kinds of decisions. [19:30] Either you acquit [19:31] or you convict, [19:32] no? [19:33] So, [19:35] I just think [19:37] that these senators [19:38] really need to [19:39] be very, [19:40] very faithful [19:40] to the rules [19:42] of impeachment, [19:43] their existing rules [19:45] of impeachment, [19:45] unless they change that, [19:47] no? [19:48] Because if they change that, [19:50] it will raise a lot of doubt [19:51] to the Filipino people. [19:52] that Senate rules [19:54] of impeachment, [19:55] according to our [19:56] former Senate president, [19:58] has been the same. [20:00] Senate rules of impeachment [20:01] that they used [20:02] during the time [20:03] of President ERA, [20:04] during the time [20:05] of Chief Justice Corona, [20:06] you know? [20:07] So, [20:07] if they will be changing that, [20:08] most especially [20:09] the substantial portion [20:10] of the same, [20:11] it will raise doubt [20:12] to the public [20:13] why they are changing [20:14] the Senate rules [20:15] and impeachment. [20:15] And I think [20:17] it's interesting [20:17] that this is being [20:18] discussed now [20:19] because there's [20:20] so much interpretation [20:21] with what the [20:23] Constitution [20:23] is silent on. [20:25] For example, [20:26] at one point, [20:27] there were lawyers [20:28] who were saying [20:29] that if the no votes [20:30] in the lower house [20:31] exceeded 106, [20:34] it can't be passed [20:35] into the Senate. [20:36] But then, [20:37] the Constitution [20:38] doesn't say that. [20:39] All it means, [20:39] it's 106. [20:40] Kahit mas marami pa kayong no, [20:42] irrelevant yun. [20:44] Di ba? [20:44] Yeah. [20:45] Yes, that's correct. [20:46] That's correct. [20:47] It makes mention only [20:48] about the one-third approving. [20:50] So, if you do not reach [20:51] the one-third approving, [20:53] it means that [20:54] the impeachment complaint [20:55] is already dismissed. [20:57] Yeah. [20:57] And it's the same argument [20:58] with what you mentioned. [21:00] It's clear, [21:01] you either acquit [21:02] or convict. [21:03] But it does not, [21:04] it is silent on [21:05] can you de facto dismiss? [21:08] Kumagawalang ganon. [21:09] The rule does not provide that. [21:11] Oh, you can't interpret. [21:12] And under the rules [21:12] and evidence, [21:13] if the law does not provide, [21:15] you should not provide. [21:16] If the rules does not mention [21:18] about the dismissal, [21:19] then you cannot raise [21:21] or act on dismissing [21:22] the articles of impeachment. [21:25] All right. [21:25] Now, Chairperson Luistro, [21:27] would you be able [21:28] to share at least with us [21:30] a part of the list [21:31] or the list [21:32] of the 11 public prosecutors? [21:35] I mean, [21:36] I've seen some of them. [21:37] I've asked. [21:38] I know you are in the list [21:39] and you've told me [21:41] you will take on the challenge. [21:43] Shell Diokno, [21:44] is he in the list? [21:47] Well, [21:47] my interview [21:49] about the possible prosecutors, [21:51] I only express my preference [21:55] about who will be joining [21:57] the prosecution panel [21:58] in my perspective [21:59] as the Justice Chair. [22:00] Sure. [22:00] Because I said that [22:02] it is important [22:03] that they have [22:04] correct appreciation [22:05] of the case [22:06] and the evidence [22:08] and the law. [22:09] No? [22:10] And of course, [22:11] these prosecutors I named [22:12] would be prosecutors I named [22:14] or at least [22:15] my recommendees. [22:17] Yeah. [22:17] So your recommendees, ma'am, [22:19] can you name them? [22:21] Yeah. [22:21] That includes, of course, [22:22] Joel Chua, [22:23] Belle Zamora. [22:24] We wanted to have [22:27] Keith Flores. [22:29] We wanted to have [22:30] Lord and Suwan, [22:32] Roj Gutierrez, [22:34] of course, [22:35] Kong Lila and Kong Chell, [22:37] our SDML, [22:38] Nonoy Defensor. [22:40] No? [22:42] We need to be 11. [22:43] Oh, parang 8 pa lang yun, ma'am. [22:45] Pagkabilang kanain. [22:46] O, parang 8 pa lang yun. [22:47] No? [22:47] Pagkasama kanain na. [22:49] So you need... [22:50] But we are considering [22:51] other members. [22:53] We still have other members [22:54] in mind, no? [22:55] But this will be [22:57] depending on [22:58] the final action [22:59] of the plenary [23:01] and the party leadership, [23:03] of course, [23:03] will be significant [23:04] on deciding [23:05] who will be [23:06] joining the panel [23:07] of prosecutors. [23:08] I just want to make clear, [23:10] Karen, no? [23:10] I am just expressing [23:12] my preference [23:12] with respect [23:13] to the House members [23:14] who will be joining [23:15] the prosecution panel. [23:17] That is because [23:18] I am thinking [23:21] that it is important [23:22] that they have [23:23] a correct appreciation [23:25] of the case, [23:26] the evidence, [23:27] and the law. [23:28] And I've seen them. [23:29] I've seen these House members [23:31] join the deliberation [23:33] in the Justice Committee [23:34] and I thought [23:35] that it is important [23:36] to express [23:37] who these House members are. [23:40] For the final action, [23:41] the final decision [23:42] belongs to the plenary [23:44] and the position, [23:45] of course, [23:45] of the party leaders [23:46] will also be significant [23:48] on this. [23:49] Tama kayo [23:50] kasi dapat [23:50] yung alam ang kaso. [23:52] Kasi yung iba, [23:53] mahirap naman [23:54] na hindi nila alam [23:55] ang kaso. [23:56] Pero yung iba kasi [23:57] natalo. [23:58] From the first impeachment, [23:59] natalo na yung iba eh. [24:01] Wala sila doon. [24:02] We lost Congressman [24:04] Jill Bungalion [24:06] and we lost [24:07] Congressman [24:08] Ton Acheron. [24:10] They lost actually [24:11] in the last election. [24:13] That's why [24:13] from the 19th Congress, [24:15] I think we [24:16] promptly considered [24:18] Kong Lila [24:19] and Kong Chell [24:20] if indeed [24:21] it pushed through. [24:23] Kaya lang [24:23] na-declared na nga tayo [24:24] unconstitutional [24:25] ng Supreme Court. [24:26] So this is [24:27] another impeachment [24:28] under the 20th Congress. [24:30] So I hope [24:31] at the onset [24:32] that both [24:33] Kong Lila [24:34] and Kong Chell [24:35] will be considered [24:36] as well. [24:37] I think to end, [24:38] what is your message [24:39] to the Senate [24:40] at this point? [24:43] My message [24:44] to the Senate [24:45] let us respond [24:46] to our [24:47] constitutional mandate [24:48] the same way [24:49] that the House [24:49] of Representatives [24:50] did. [24:51] This is not [24:52] a matter of choice. [24:53] This is a matter [24:54] of duty. [24:56] On that note, [24:57] I want to thank you [24:57] for joining me today. [24:59] House Justice Committee [25:00] Chairperson [25:01] Jerville Luistro. [25:03] Thank you, ma'am. [25:04] Thank you, Karen, [25:05] and good morning [25:06] to all the viewers.