Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero said the upper chamber is entrusting the Solicitor General (Solgen) with responding to the Supreme Court's (SC) directive to comment on the petitions requesting immediate action on Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment.

“Nirefer namin ang bagay na ‘yan sa Solicitor General’s Office. Bilang abogado na tumatayon sa pamahalaan, Solgen ang sasagot, Solgen ang a-appear, Solgen ang maghahandale ng kaso para sa Senado (We have referred that matter to the Solicitor General’s Office. As the lawyer representing the government, the Solicitor General will answer, appear, and handle the case for the Senate),” Escudero told reporters in a press briefing in Quezon City on Wednesday.  

Escudero noted the Senate is not answering or preparing to address the petition. 

“Solgen ang tatayong abogado ‘dun (Solgen will act as the lawyer of the Senate),” he added. 

Escudero clarified that the Senate's legal team has prepared a response, which will be sent to the Solicitor General.

“Bagaman may draft na pri-nepare ang legal bilang advisory sakin, ifoforward din namin ‘yan sa Solgen (Although a draft has been prepared by the legal team as an advisory to me), we will also forward it to the Solicitor General but only for their information and consideration. It’s the Solgen will appear before the Supreme Court on behalf of the Senate,” he said. 

“I already requested the Solgen to make that representation before the Supreme Court on behalf of the Senate,” he added. 

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court directed the Senate to respond to the petition — urging the high court to compel the legislative body — to take immediate action on the impeachment case against Duterte.

The Senate was given 10 days to submit its comment from receipt of the notice to submit. 

What public clamor?

Meanwhile, Escudero rejected the increasing demands for the Senate to convene as an impeachment court so it can start the trial for Duterte's oust.

“I don’t define that as clamor. There are people asking for it. Saang libro naman sinabing naging clamor na yung isang kaso. May nakalagay ba sa depenisyon ng clamor at dapat limang kaso, sampung kaso, labinglimang kaso, dalawampung kaso bago maging clamor (Which book says that a case becomes a clamor? Does the definition of clamor state that it should be five cases, ten cases, fifteen cases, or twenty cases before it becomes a clamor?),” he stressed. 

Several groups have been calling the Senate to start Duterte’s trial following the House of Representatives transmission of the Articles of Impeachment.

Earlier on Wednesday, the Bayan Muna Party-list submitted a position paper to the Senate, calling for prompt action on the impeachment trial. 

Senate Minority Leader Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III also wrote a letter addressed to Escudero, citing Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 4 of the 1987 Constitution which states that the Senate must act “forthwith” on an impeachment case.

“Since it is a constitutional provision or term that we are giving meaning to, the term ‘forthwith’ must be interpreted in accordance with the verba legis rule, that is, it should be given its ‘plain and ordinary meaning,’” he said

Likening it to the historical call for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, Escudero insisted the pressure from various groups does not yet constitute a public clamor.

“Iisa pa lang yung kaso. Ang sumusulat lang sa akin, tatlo pa lang. Teka muna, kailan magiging clamor, ilang sulat. Tatlo pa lang. Tatlong sulat, isang kaso clamor na ba yun libro mo? Sa libro ko hindi. Pangalawa, babalik tanawan natin ang panahon ni Jesus. May clamor, napako siya sa krus. Hindi naman ibig sabihin no’n totoo at tama yun (There's only one case. The people writing to me, there are only three so far. Wait a minute, when does it become a clamor, how many letters? There are only three. Three letters, one case — does that qualify as a clamor in your book? In my book, no. Secondly, let's look back at the time of Jesus. There was a clamor for Him to be nailed to the cross. But that doesn't mean it was true or right),” Escudero said as he questioned whether these calls for impeachment reflect a public sentiment. 

On the other hand, 29 Mindanao lawyers filed a petition before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, seeking the High Court to issue a temporary restraining order. 

Atty. Israelito Torreon, Atty. Martin Delgra, Atty. James Reserva, and Atty. Hillary Olga led the petitioners in appealing to the SC to declare the impeachment complaint against Duterte as “null and void.”

When asked to comment, Escudero said he did not want to preempt the SC’s ruling. 

“Ayaw kong pangunahan ang Korte Suprema. Hayaan nating balik tanawan na lamang ang kasaysayan. Minsan nag-utos ang Supreme Court TRO na huwag nang ituloy ang impeachment laban kay Chief Justice Davide sa parte ng Kamara. Hindi yun sinunod ng Kamara (I don't want to preempt the Supreme Court. Let’s just look back at history. There was a time when the Supreme Court issued a TRO to stop the impeachment against Chief Justice Davide in the House of Representatives. The House did not follow that order),” he said. 

Escudero cited a case involving Chief Justice Davide, where the Supreme Court issued a TRO to stop the impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives.

Despite this, Escudero lamented the House did not follow the order and continued voting, “although they did not achieve the required one-third majority for the impeachment.”

He then cited the case of Chief Justice Corona, where the SC ruled that the foreign currency deposit account should not be opened. In this case, the Senate voted to follow the Supreme Court's decision.

“Magkaiba ang ginawa ng Kongreso at ng Senado kaugnay sa kautusan ng Korte Suprema (The actions of Congress and the Senate were different in relation to the Supreme Court's orders.) So, sa parte ng Senado ngayon (in the case of the Senate now) that will be decided upon by the Senate. Depending on when the order will be issued by the Supreme Court,” he added. 

No special session

Despite this, Escudero reiterated he is not keen on asking President Ferdinand R. Marcos to convene a special session with the Congress. 

“No, I said that already because under the Constitution I can only ask for that after consultation with the majority and minority floor leaders and with the consent of the Speaker of the House for urgent legislation,” he said. 

The Senate President maintained “that impeachment is totally different from legislation or the passing of laws.”

“Just to add [up], the Constitution said a special can be convened in case of vacancy in the position of president or vice president. Which includes the possibility of impeachment but still, the framers did not say that the senate president can ask for a special session for the purpose of conducting an impeach trial,” he said. 

He further stated, “That was clearly excluded by the framers of the constitution knowing fully well that, that situation is possible.”

“So, you have to understand when I’m strictly following the constitution for urgent legislation that I can request for a special session.”

Escudero maintained no impeachment trial will commence during the session break of Congress.

He likewise said the drafting of the proposed amendments to the impeach rules is underway. 

“It’s the Senate as a legislative body that should approve the rules, not the impeachment court, the Senate,” he emphasized. 

Escudero said the drafting will be done through the Senate Secretary “in conjunction” with the legal department of the chamber, and consultation with some practicing lawyers.