Senator Panfilo Lacson said he was proud to have helped prevent the outright dismissal of the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte, a move he said would have killed the case permanently.
In an interview on DZMM, Lacson explained that while archiving the complaint makes the case inactive, it still allows for revival if the Supreme Court reverses its earlier ruling that declared the complaint unconstitutional. Dismissal, on the other hand, would have left no path for recovery.
“I take pride in being the one who played a major role in questioning the motion to dismiss. If the motion to dismiss had prevailed, the case would be moot and academic even if the Supreme Court reversed its decision,” he said in Filipino.
He abstained from voting, saying he didn’t want to go against the Supreme Court’s initial ruling, but also didn’t want to be part of a move that would preempt the Court’s final decision.
On Wednesday, Lacson was one of five senators who voted to suspend consideration of the motion to dismiss. Though the motion lost, Lacson successfully pushed Sen. Rodante Marcoleta to amend his motion, from dismissal to archiving, allowing for the case to be revived later.
“The implication of a motion to dismiss prevailing is that if the Supreme Court grants the House’s motion for reconsideration, the Senate no longer has basis to act because it has dismissed the complaint and that is the bad thing,” Lacson warned, calling it a dangerous scenario.
He also questioned the logic of senators who backed dismissal on the grounds of respecting the Supreme Court, asking if they’d still respect it if the Court changed its stance.
The senator noted the Court’s unusual move of asking the Vice President to comment on the House’s motion for reconsideration, a sign that the Court may be open to review.
“This is not a common occurrence. Usually, the high court would just issue a one-sentence minute resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, but in this case, it ordered the Vice President to comment. What we must now look out for is its order for arguments – which means the Supreme Court is open to reconsidering or to review its decision,” he said.
Lacson also criticized Marcoleta’s claim that a reversal by the Supreme Court is unlikely. “[His] claim that the possibility of the SC reversing its ruling is speculative is as speculative as his claim that it will not reverse its ruling.”IMT
