Senator-judges are not allowed to make motions, Tito Sotto recalls
At A Glance
- Sen. Vicente "Tito" Sotto III said the Senate impeachment court's decision is "flawed" as a senator-judge cannot file a motion and only the defense or prosecution counsels are allowed to do so.
Recalling what he learned from the late Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Senator-elect and former Senate president Vicente Sotto III said senator-judges are not allowed to make motions and may only ask for clarifications during an impeachment trial.
Sotto made the remark as he described the Senate’s decision to remand the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte to the House of Representatives on a mere motion raised by a senator-judge as “flawed.”
“(The) Senate (Impeachment) Court’s decision is flawed! A senator-judge cannot file a motion on himself. Only the defense or prosecution counsels are allowed,” Sotto said in a statement.
“Sen. Miriam, who was a former RTC (regional trial court) judge taught me that in the 11th Congess. Senator-judges can only ask questions for clarifications,” he added.
Sotto also rejected Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero’s stand that the rules do not prohibit the remanding of the case back to the House of Representatives.
“Hindi porke wala sa rules ay pwedeng gawin (Just because it’s not in the rules they can do that),” Sotto pointed out.
Moreover, Sotto said presiding over a collegial body does not require being a lawyer: “familiarity with parliamentary procedure, experience, fairness and good faith are enough.”
“I had been in impeachment trials before. Adherence to the Philippine Constitution, our laws and rules are within the understanding of a Filipino citizen. Plain and simple language need no interpretation from a lawyer,” Sotto reiterated.
At the same time, Sotto urged senators to study the actions of the senator-judges during previous the impeachment trials first before making any statements or motions.
This includes, studying and learning why senator-judges are required to wear the traditional impeachment robe which is considered a symbol of “authority and impartiality.”
“Sen. Miriam, being a former judge, taught me then that judges' robes are a symbol of their authority and impartiality, signifying their role as representatives of the judicial branch and the law,” he said.
“They also represent a tradition of professionalism and institutional integrity, both historically and in present-day courtrooms, he pointed out.
“Judges wear robes to show they are fair and do not take sides. The robe stands for their role as leaders of the court who follow the law,” he said.
“I suggest the present crop of senators specially the newer ones to back read our records and debates in the 11th Congress when the first impeachment was well discussed by Miriam and others. The reason for the robe and the decorum. Aral aral muna bago putak (Study first before you speak)!” Sotto argued.
It can be recalled that when the Senate convened as an impeachment court last Tuesday, June 10, three senators—Imee Marcos, Robin Padilla and Cynthia Villar—did not don their impeachment robes when they voted on the motion to remand the impeachment complaint back to the House.
Meanwhile, Atty. Reginald Tongol, whom Escudero designated as the spokesperson of the impeachment court, said that while they are not supposed to react on the various legal opinions regarding the matter, they respect their views and the judicial process.
“Since this is a political process, the impeachment court welcomes all of those constitutional views, opinions, negative and positive,” Tongol told reporters in an interview.
“So I am sure that the senator-judges are taking it into consideration, and it can be persuasive to them,” he added.
Tongol noted, however, that one of the framers of the Constitution, former associate justice Adolfo Azcuna, had also shared the belief that the remanding or returning back to the House of the impeachment complaint is very unique but is not unconstitutional.
“So we will leave it to the constitutionalists, they are also debating. Even the senator-judges, as you’ve seen during the deliberations, they also debated with each other,” he said.
“But ultimately, the voice of the majority prevailed as it should be as any collegial body that decides regarding matters like this,” he said.