MANILA — Senator Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan said the Motion for Reconsideration (MR) filed by the House of Representatives is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to rectify what he described as “erroneous factual errors” in its ruling that nullified the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte.

In an interview on ANC’s Big Story, Pangilinan said there was “a misapprehension of the facts” when the high court declared the impeachment case unconstitutional. He also criticized the Senate’s decision to archive the Articles of Impeachment despite the pending MR.

“So, if the facts are wrong, then your ruling is wrong. One hypothetical case (is) that you didn’t kill the person, you know, but the court did not appreciate the facts and said you did,” Pangilinan said. “Therefore, your ruling is unjust, unfair. And that’s what happened here.”

The senator pointed out that the ruling was based on an erroneous interpretation of an ABS-CBN report, which the network later clarified in an official statement.

He also argued that the one-year bar rule should not have applied, noting that the first three impeachment complaints were archived after the fourth complaint was referred to the Senate.

“The initiation of the first three did not occur. Its archiving occurred after the fourth impeachment complaint was referred, transmitted to the Senate,” Pangilinan explained. “So, there was no first or second or third initiation because what they acted on and initiated was the fourth complaint. And then they archived the three.”

“So, the facts behind saying that the fourth complaint is barred by the one-year bar because there were three other impeachment complaints that were initiated is wrong. It’s actually incorrect,” he stressed.

Pangilinan, who voted “no” to archiving the Articles of Impeachment during the August 6 Senate plenary, maintained that the chamber should have waited for the Supreme Court’s resolution on the MR.

“But one thing is for sure, is clear: that MR, the Motion for Reconsideration, is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to correct what we believe to be erroneous factual errors,” he said. “I mean, if you do something as unprecedented as that, the least (the) Supreme Court could have done was check their facts. And that’s why the motion for reconsideration is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to correct.”