Senate cuts impeachment Gordian knot

In deliberating on the ruling the Supreme Court issued recently on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, the Senate showcased the true and actual worldview, advocacy, competence, conviction, partisanship, mindset, moral fabric, and sentiment (WACCPMMS) of every senator. If this eightfold path were reduced to parameters of performance, a benchmark if you will, then the governed could easily grade the senators individually.

Those with failing marks do not deserve another term come 2028 unlike those who will receive high honors. This was an unbelievable encounter –- upfront and personal -– with those the electorate voted for as we all saw and heard with our own eyes and ears the historical proceedings in the 20th Senate of the Philippines.

The six-hour affair enlightened the viewing universe on the vote for two motions raised by Sen. Dante Marcoleta and Sen. Tito Sotto, respectively. With great skill, Senate President Chiz Escudero presided over the debate, particularly as the “Sword of Alexander” had been hoisted over two interlocking motions — the Sotto-Marcoleta dialectical arguments. It was a critical juncture that could have gone either way.

Upon nominal voting, Sotto’s motion which was accorded higher precedence under the Senate Rules was lost giving way to Marcoleta’s motion to dismiss the impeachment complaint with an amendment the entire body agreed on. Having to explain their yea or nay vote, each senator expressed their thoughts. Their explanations for their votes are worth committing to memory for circling back to for a clearer understanding of how this national conversation would shape future policies.

The Senate vote was an unprecedented 19 in agreement, four in disagreement, and one discombobulated abstention. There were no “fireworks” as some quarters might have expected, no senator went “ballistic,” there were no walkouts, no hard feelings.

If we can ceremoniously give unto Caesar what is due him, all the credit should go all the way back to that neophyte senator’s privilege speech and his motion to forthwith dismiss the impeachment complaint. Expected to clean house to a limit, Marcoleta metamorphosed into the man of the hour — without really trying —proof he was long a trial lawyer for nothing.

It’s a good thing it didn’t turn into a circus as there were no clowns. Neither did it turn into a comedy. No one dared to “filibuster” either. There were no shouting matches or anything that came close to it. There was no domineering a capella voice since one’s higher competence muffled an otherwise awkward matriarchal attempt. There was no cutting corners in the entire proceedings. Everyone got a fair chance to articulate their position in freewheeling fashion, time unlimited.

Let’s undertake to be precise on what was voted upon. The voting was done to register their simple yes or no and companion explanation on whether or not to dismiss the impeachment complaint against lady Sara in full congruity with the decision of the High Tribunal.

With a specific amendment agreed upon, the body voted to, in effect, “transfer the Articles of Impeachment to the archives, adhering to the immediately executory decision rendered by the SC en banc, which held that the Articles of Impeachment were null and void ab initio, and that the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the same.”

Apropos of the motion to dismiss of movant Marcoleta, the compromise as properly incorporated in the final text introduced simply the operative term “adhere,” as well as “archive,” the latter a historical precedent.

In fine, this single broad act of the Senate nailed shut the coffin that had threatened the fate of VP Sara. In the aftermath, this has put closure to the disconcerting chaos, discord, and tension created by rabid political rivalry that is totally inimical to the equilibrium of our tripartite system of government.