MANILA—Senator Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan said the Senate should have waited for the Supreme Court to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration (MR) filed by the House of Representatives before voting to archive the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte.

In explaining his vote during the August 6 plenary session, Pangilinan emphasized the need to respect the pending MR seeking to reverse the Court’s earlier decision that declared the complaint unconstitutional.

“We took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and that includes our own determination whether or not the nullification, the acts of the impeachment court and exclusive sole power to try and decide impeachment cases, if the ruling was based on the facts and not on a misapprehension of the facts,” Pangilinan said.

“Kaya nga sana hinintay ang Motion for Reconsideration. The impeachment court being ousted of its jurisdiction by the Supreme Court is unprecedented and sadly, as we read the ruling, the decision (is) based on the wrong facts,” he added.

Pangilinan voted “no” to the motion of Senator Rodante Marcoleta to archive the Articles of Impeachment, saying Marcoleta’s motion should have been laid on the table while waiting for the Supreme Court’s action on the MR.

“I reiterate: one cannot be right with the law if one is wrong with the facts. And that’s why napakahalaga nung motion for reconsideration. There is still an opportunity for the errors to be corrected kaya andiyan ang MR,” he said.

He also stressed the importance of inter-chamber courtesy, saying the Senate should have acknowledged the House of Representatives as a co-equal chamber by deferring action on the complaint until the MR is resolved.

“Kaya nais po sana natin na i-lay muna yung matter on the table. To vote to archive the complaint despite the MR still pending, I believe, Mr. President, and I believe the others who voted ‘no’ share this position, is premature as the ruling may still be reversed or modified,” Pangilinan said.

While expressing his respect for the Supreme Court, he raised concern over the precedent set by the ruling, which he said stripped the Senate of its role as an impeachment court and the House of its sole power to initiate proceedings.

Through the MR, Pangilinan said, the Court has an opportunity to “harmonize” the Constitution’s provisions and clarify the legal bounds of judicial review, the House’s initiation power, and the Senate’s power to try and decide impeachment cases.