THE Senate impeachment court’s ruling on the voting threshold for conviction in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial remains in effect unless the Supreme Court issues a temporary restraining order (TRO), court spokesman Regie Tongol said on Thursday.
Tongol said the defense may challenge the ruling before the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, but such a move would not automatically suspend the impeachment proceedings.
The defense, led by Sheila Sison and Michael Poa, had indicated its intention to elevate the matter to the high court.
“We fully expect that the issue will ultimately reach the Supreme Court — as the final arbiter regarding constitutional interpretation across the branches of government,” Tongol said.
He noted, however, that the petition must establish that the Senate impeachment court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, a requirement for a Rule 65 petition.
Tongol said the Supreme Court could issue a TRO to halt the proceedings while the petition is pending, but that decision rested solely with the high court and that the party seeking the injunction must demonstrate sufficient grounds.
He clarified that the impeachment court’s action was already executory and would remain in force unless the Supreme Court intervened.
Addressing questions about the difference between the latest development and the earlier appeal of a ruling by Presiding Officer Francis Escudero, Tongol said both involved the same case but differed in procedural stage.
“Neither party has any further remedy available under the impeachment court’s rules,” he said, adding that the parties’ next recourse was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian, meanwhile, cautioned against interpreting the 13 votes cast to overturn the presiding officer’s ruling in the impeachment trial of Vice President Duterte as an indication of the eventual verdict.
Gatchalian said the Sept. 23 vote on the impeachment court’s voting threshold did not constitute a vote for conviction or acquittal, stressing that the outcome would depend on the evidence and testimonies presented in the trial.
“It doesn’t mean that yesterday’s vote will automatically be the vote for conviction. That’s a long way off,” Gatchalian told reporters in an ambush interview. “It still depends on the presentation of evidence. It still depends on what the witnesses say. So, that wasn’t the vote to convict or the vote to acquit.”
Physical presence required
Defending the ruling that senators absent during the trial could still vote if they were physically present and legally permitted to perform their duties on the day of the verdict, Gatchalian said the fundamental principle was that only those present could cast a vote.
“It isn’t complicated because the basic principle is: if you are present, you can vote. That is the fundamental rule. And that is the fairest approach,” he said.
He argued that automatically treating an absent senator’s nonparticipation as an acquittal would not establish the senator’s actual position on the case.
“We wouldn’t know what their vote actually was. We wouldn’t know if they read the transcripts or watched the impeachment trial,” Gatchalian said.
While acknowledging that senators who attended the proceedings in person were in a better position to observe witnesses’ demeanor and ask questions, he said absent senators could review transcripts and recordings before voting.
Asked whether Sen. Ronald dela Rosa could vote despite not having attended the entire trial, Gatchalian replied, “He can vote.”
He likened the physical-presence requirement to voting during regular Senate sessions, saying senators must be present when a vote is taken.
Gatchalian said detained senators could seek permission from the Sandiganbayan to participate in official duties, although he cited existing Supreme Court jurisprudence restricting such participation while they remain under the court’s jurisdiction.
He noted that Sen. Jinggoy Estrada had previously sought permission but was denied.
No shift by Mark Villar
Gatchalian also dismissed speculation that Sen. Mark Villar’s vote to overturn the presiding officer’s ruling signaled his alignment with the Senate majority.
Villar was the only minority senator who attended and voted during the Sept. 23 proceedings.
“You should just ask him. It would be better to ask him directly,” Gatchalian said when asked whether Villar would join the majority.
The Senate president said the opinions of the amici curiae, including retired Supreme Court justices, had played a significant role in the senators’ deliberations.
Gatchalian emphasized that the final verdict remained uncertain because the defense had yet to present its case.
The outcome, he said, would depend on the evidence, witness testimonies and the arguments of both the prosecution and defense.
“Nothing is certain,” he said when asked whether the 13 votes guaranteed conviction.
‘Exciting’ week ahead
The House of Representatives’ prosecution panel is bracing for “another exciting” week as it resumes with its presentation of witnesses in the impeachment trial.
Topping the list is Davao City Mayor Sebastian Duterte, who was subpoenaed, along with two others, to testify on the article concerning the vice president’s alleged unexplained wealth.
House prosecutors are expected to question him about all deals entered into by city hall with GenCorp Industries Inc., a company allegedly co-owned by his sister.
“Next week, the prosecution will present many more witnesses. Included among those we are subpoenaing is the mayor of Davao City — the sibling of our Vice President — Mayor Baste Duterte,” former Surigao del Norte congressman and prosecution adviser Robert Ace Barbers said in Filipino at a press conference last Wednesday.
The younger Duterte’s appearance, although still unconfirmed, would push the prosecution’s task of constructing a “house of evidence,” Barbers said.
“We are gradually putting the puzzle together to complete the picture,” he said.
“Next week would be another exciting week,” he added.
Meanwhile, Manila 6th District Rep. Bienvenido Abante Jr. renewed his call for Vice President Duterte to personally appear before the Senate impeachment court and answer allegations concerning her wealth, business interests and financial declarations.
In a press conference, the lawmaker said only Duterte herself can directly answer the allegations against her.
He said having wealth is not improper, but Duterte should explain its source if it is alleged to be illegal or ill-gotten.
Abante also asked the Senate impeachment court to determine whether remarks made by Paolo Panelo, the vice president’s spokesman, violated its sub judice rule.
He made the call after Panelo alleged that some senator-judges manipulated the vote that led to the impeachment court’s new threshold ruling.
“He might not be a member of the defense team, but he is officially the spokesman of the vice president,” Abante said.
