Senator Ronald "Bato" Dela Rosa Explanation of vote

SENATOR RONALD "BATO" DELA ROSA
EXPLANATION OF VOTE

Mr. President, I vote yes to the motion of Senator Marcoleta and may I be allowed to explain my vote?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Last June 10, a day before the 19th Congress adjourned sine die, I stood on this same spot conveying my serious concerns on the constitutional infirmities surrounding the Articles of Impeachment that the 19th Congress of the House of Representatives transmitted to the Senate. I pointed out that the circumstances surrounding the filing of Articles of Impeachment seem to violate the one-year bar rule enshrined in Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution, among others. Given this patent violation of the Constitution, I made a motion to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte.

After a long discussion with the members of this chamber of the 19th Congress, I listened, and I learned. My motion for dismissal was amended by Senator Alan Cayetano, and became a "motion to remand". The Impeachment Court then ordered the remanding of the Articles of Impeachment to the House of Representatives. This Chamber also requires the 20th Congress House of Representatives to communicate whether or not they are willing and ready to pursue the impeachment complaint -- a requirement which, until now, has not been complied with.

In a sudden shift of events, before the opening of the 20th Congress, the Supreme Court took all by surprise when it promulgated their decision on petitions challenging the validity of the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Duterte.

When the Supreme Court released their decision to the media, many people expressed their views. There are those who celebrated and commended the Supreme Court, others voiced out their disappointments, some criticized the decision. The mixed reactions seem to suggest that the decision promulgated lacks clarity.

And yet Mr. President, after reading the decision, I asked myself: Is it long? yes, 97 pages to be exact. Is it vague? No, Mr. President. It is clear as day.

According to the "plain meaning rule" or verba legis, if the statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without interpretation. Now, even though the decision of the Supreme Court is not a statute, it still forms part of the legal system of the Philippines as mandated by Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

Since the decision of the Supreme Court is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, applying the "plain meaning rule", it should be given its literal meaning. That is: the Articles of Impeachment are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, the Senate DID not acquire jurisdiction, and the decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY. Plain and simple.

Kaya naman Ginoong Pangulo, nagulat ako noong ako ay tanungin, "susunod po ba AKO or TAYO, sa decision ng Supreme Court?"

Hindi po ganun kataas ang tingin ko sa aking sarili. I honestly do not place myself in a position so high, too high, that I will be the one to be asked if I will obey the Supreme Court's ruling.

Ang nakasaad sa ruling na iyon, immediately executory. Wala namang post script o P.S, sa baba na nagsasabing: subject to your review and further evaluation.

As a member of this Senate and as a citizen of this Republic, I submit to the authority of the Supreme Court and respect its decision. Perhaps, in shedding light on the Highest Court's duty, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines said it best and I quote : "As the final arbiter of constitutional questions, the Supreme Court bears the solemn duty to interpret the law, determine its bounds, and clarify its implications--even when it revisits past doctrines or addresses new contexts. This authority is rooted in checks and balances: the very design that guards against the excesses of any branch."

Mr. President, the rule of law is the foundation of our democracy, and if we are to be models of upholding the law, then it behooves us to listen and heed those who have been tasked by the Constitution, to interpret the Constitution. The interpretation of the law remains lodged with the Supreme Court and we must abide by its decision. What message would we send out to our people if we, their legislators, will not honor the wisdom of the Highest Court in the land? Are we not, in effect, promoting anarchy?

I want to believe that indeed, we are men and women of the law. That we live by rules and perform our mandate as elected officials within lawful means. Our people rest easy and feel a sense of security because their Senate has remained to be guardians of democracy.

Looking back, the Senate has accepted several Supreme Court decisions in the past. Why should the ruling in this current impeachment case be any different? Is our concept of respect for and acceptance of Supreme Court decisions selective? If that is the case, are we not playing with fire? Fire, mind you, does not always intend to enlighten or illuminate--it can also burn and bring a House down.

Much has been said about where I stand--and I understand that. My positions on certain matters have always been consistent and transparent. But while the public and this Chamber may be familiar with my views, all that is simply driven by what is in my heart.

And I say this with humility: my heart has always been guided by what is right. Not only when it is easy. Not only when it is convenient. But even, and especially, when it challenges my comfort zone. When it no longer serves our side. Because at the end of the day, it is a matter of principle, not popularity. Perhaps, sometimes we ought to protect our democracy, even from ourselves.

Of course, the Senate is not a mere follower of the Supreme Court but a co-equal branch, meant to respect the powers and functions of the latter in its decisions. I trust that this Senate will continue to peacefully co-exist with the Supreme Court. Let us not allow this impeachment trial to become a venue and opportunity to disrupt our system of government. I hope this is not the time we dance differently, when clearly, the same song is playing.

We must follow the Supreme Court ruling not because it is the most convenient thing to do but because it is what is right and just--no matter how unacceptable or painful it may be.

And this is why, Mr. President, I vote YES to adhering to the Supreme Court decision.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Legal Disclaimer:

EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.