Several Law School faculties in the Philippine among them the University of the Philippines (UP) and Davao’s very own Ateneo de Davao University (ADDU), lawyers’ organization, and individual lawyers are one in their opinion that the Senate should “forthwith” proceed with the trial of the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte.
This manifestation of opinion came about more overtly when a draft resolution was circulated in the Senate, and eventually in public, calling for the members of the Upper House to dismiss the case against the VP. Later, the draft resolution was traced to have emanated from the Office of Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, who readily owned up to it.
We have this idea that the circulation of the draft resolution is actually a “testing of the waters” to draw to the surface the reaction of the general public should such a resolution be introduced in the Senate plenary. Now that it faces a very negative reaction, no Senator, not even the Davao solon from whose office the draft came, will ever attempt to present the same for approval by the plenary.
However, it is clear that the proposed resolution was not properly prepared, and its weaknesses were readily apparent on the surface. The proponent somehow forgot that the Senate is not a regular court where, once a case is filed by the Office of the Prosecutor, it can immediately look into the document’s attendant to the case. And once found wanting or sufficient, it can immediately dismiss the same outright or schedule the trial.
In the impeachment case, the body must first convene as a Court before all the proceedings can be started.
Now, if the Senators resume session and decide to dismiss the VP’s impeachment case, then very clearly, according to the law faculties, lawyers’ group and individual respected law experts, they are reneging on their Constitutionally-mandated duty.
Meanwhile, the country’s lawyers, joined by some members of the Senate, are locked in argument as to the forthrightness of the position of Senate President Chiz Escudero on setting a timetable for the various activities attendant to the trial of VP Sara’s impeachment. The apple of discord in the schedule is that it will cross over to the 20th Senate, and legal luminaries have conflicting views as to whether or not it is allowed in the Constitution.
These issues though, will definitely not be resolved unless some interested parties will dare elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.
In the absence of a Supreme Court intervention, there is no doubt that the impeachment trial will be delayed further. Perhaps, with all the questions on the legality of the procedure, the accused Vice President will already be in the thick of the campaign for the 2028 Presidential elections with her impeachment case still untried.
Of course, if the Senate is to improve its credibility, which for now is in its lowest of low, then it should proceed to take collective action on what they are supposed to do. The Senate President should present to the plenary his proposed timetable; Dela Rosa should introduce his resolution of dismissal of the VP’s impeachment case. If the plenary agrees then the body has to do the necessary. If it will turn the proposed measures down, then the Senate must find alternatives to dispose of the impeachment case and deal with the legality issues later.
Our take on the situation nagging the Senate with regards to the VP’s impeachment is that the longer the Senators sit on these the closer they become lawmakers “without balls?”
******************************
Dealing with the flooding problem of our Davao City is no longer a matter of implementing projects for prevention. All conditions that would allow effective implementation of projects that will prevent flooding are already interfered and/or altered in the name of development.
Instead, our city planners must now focus on crafting projects that will mitigate the impact of flooding in the city. They should also introduce policies that are designed to reduce the vulnerability of the population as well as sources of livelihood of the people from the menace of floods.
Say, why cannot the city’s physical planners and policy makers agree on the strict implementation of locations of residential subdivisions as well as the design of its development? Today we can see residential enclaves with hardly a distance between houses. Meaning, the developers are maximizing the areas to be sold to house and lot buyers. Most subdivisions, especially those under the category of mass housing, do not have the appropriate drainage system and every inch within the home lot is concreted leaving no space for water to sip in.
Why cannot any of our councilors in the incoming city council look into this aspect and come up with proposed ordinance governing the design of subdivision development.
We are certain that any one of the incoming city lawmakers will be appreciated if he or she can come up with measures that will have a lasting impact on the population’s vulnerability to disasters like flooding.
They must include in their staff’s key result areas submission of relevant proposed ordinance instead of just allowing them to do “Marites” in their office or do the 15-30.
