Can you jail a senator’s vote?
You removed two no votes and somehow yes became harder? So now maybe conviction should need only 14 yesses instead of 16.
Text size
You removed two no votes and somehow yes became harder? So now maybe conviction should need only 14 yesses instead of 16.
How many senators are 24 senators?
Very difficult question obviously. We needed four ex-Supreme Court justices, legal giants, constitutional experts, everybody thinking very hard.
Friends, we have a cheaper solution. Why isn’t the first question: “Why can’t Marcoleta come?”
Not “free him.” Or “dismiss his case.” Is Marcoleta still a senator? Yes? Then let him be a senator.
An impeachment trial is not an ordinary Senate hearing.
The Constitution created impeachment. Constitution says the Senate tries impeachment. Constitution created the Senate. Constitution says senators are elected by the people. The people elected Marcoleta. So Marcoleta should sit as a senator-judge because of the Constitution.
What put Sen. Marcoleta in jail? Plunder law.
That’s a statute. Big word. Only means an ordinary law. Passed by Congress.
So Constitution gives Marcoleta a job, ordinary law puts him in jail, now he can’t do the constitutional job.
And the first impulse is to turn to the Constitution: “Maybe 16 shouldn’t be 16 anymore?”
Hahaha. What? The ordinary law created the problem. Why is the Constitution being asked to adjust?
Very entitled statute. Anything else? Imagine Congress passes an ordinary law tomorrow: “President’s term now three years.” Excuse me? Constitution says six. Congress: Sorry, ordinary law. Game over. Everybody understands that’s ridiculous.
Keep Marcoleta in jail if the law requires it, but find a lawful way for him to be a senator-judge from jail.
Don’t know. We move billions of pesos online across the planet in seconds. But one senator in jail? Impossible! Laptop? Zoom? Guarded? Bring him to the Senate, bring him back? Very complicated.
How about this: Marcoleta is a no. Jinggoy is a no. They got detained. So the no side loses two votes. And somehow the complaint is we lost yes votes!
Which is more complicated?
You removed two no votes and somehow yes became harder? So now maybe conviction should need only 14 yesses instead of 16.
Huh?
Wasn’t an impeachment supposed to be very hard? That’s why the bar is so high. You’re not removing a barangay tanod.
Maybe it’s so complicated because they say prisoner Marcoleta cannot vote because he’s out. In jail, cannot participate, can’t influence the impeachment.
OK.
Man is already influencing the trial without even voting. Amazing. Everybody is discussing changing 16 because of him. Very out. Very powerless. That’s why he can’t vote, correct?
Constitution says the Senate alone tries an impeachment case. Not the prosecutors or the Ombudsman. Definitely not the Sandigan.
So why does another court get to decide whether impeach judges can show up?
Imagine the conversation. Win: “Bring Marcoleta here. We need our senator-judge.” Sandiganbayan: “No. He stays here. He’s our prisoner.” Who has the last word?
And if perfectly legitimate prosecutions (nobody cheating, nobody conspiring, everybody just doing his job, Ombudsman, RTC, NBI, Sandigan) outside impeachment can change the rise and fall inside impeachment, where is the wall? Separation of powers?
And if Sandigan can stop one senator from attending, can it stop five? Ten? Sixteen? Suppose all 24 are detained. Are they still senators? Yes. Is there still a Senate? Yes. Can the Senate actually do anything? Well. Fantastic.
We’re asking why our Constitution should allow that possibility.
That you can make conviction impossible without changing one word of the Constitution.
