(Eagle News) — The Palace “respects” the move of at least 13 senators to urge the Supreme Court to review its decision nullifying the appointment of Maria Lourdes Sereno as Chief Justice.
In a press conference on Thursday, May 17, Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque said opposition senators Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon, Senators Antonio Trillanes IV, Risa Hontiveros, Bam Aquino, Francis Pangilinan and Leila de Lima; and Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III, Senators Francis Escudero, Sherwin Gatchalian, Grace Poe, Juan Edgardo Angara, Senate President Pro Tempore Ralph Recto and Senator Joel Villanueva were “free to sign such a resolution.”
Roque noted, however, Senator Ping Lacson’s statement that it was “premature” to sign such.
“First, we have no jurisdiction. Why? Because the articles of impeachment have not yet been transmitted. It depends if the House transmits the articles of impeachment to the Senate, that’s another matter we have to discuss as a collegial body,” Lacson had said.
The senator had also noted that the Senate, in the first place, “cannot question the SC because we are not authorized.”
“Sa kaso ni CJ, wala silang basehan na magreklamo kasi wala pang sinusumite sa kanila na impeachment complaint..Wala namang impeachment complaint na trinansmit officially sa Senate,” Roque said in a television interview.
The articles of impeachment and the House justice panel report are still slated to be voted upon in the plenary.
But House justice panel Rep. Rey Umali has said he would move for a halt in the impeachment proceedings, warning of a “constitutional crisis” if they were allowed to proceed.
He said the “crisis” could stem from the conflicting views between the SC, which sees the Chief Justice post as vacated, and the Senate, which would see the post as filled if it proceeds with an impeachment trial.
With a vote of 8-6, the SC granted the quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida.
The SC made a distinction between impeachment, which it said was a political process, and quo warranto, which it noted was a judicial process.
It said both could proceed “independently and simultaneously.”
