MANILA – Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan argued that questions over who should preside over the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte should not be debated before the Senate sitting as an impeachment court, saying the issue is either for the Senate in plenary or the Supreme Court to resolve.

During the opening day of the impeachment trial, Pangilinan said the Constitution does not require the Senate President to preside over impeachment proceedings involving the vice president or other impeachable officials.

“Thank you, Senate President. Mr. President, with all due respect, the Constitution does not provide that the Senate President must preside in cases of impeachment trial,” Pangilinan said.

“What the Constitution provides is that when the President is undergoing impeachment, going through the trial, is being tried, the Chief Justice must preside,” he added.

Pangilinan said there is no constitutional provision stating that the Senate President must preside when the vice president or any other impeachable officer is on trial.

“Nowhere in the Constitution, in the provisions on public accountability and impeachment does it say that the Senate President must preside when the Vice President is under trial or any other impeachable officer,” he said.

He also maintained that the Senate validly exercised its rule-making authority when it approved amendments to its impeachment rules on June 3, which he said were later ratified during the special session on June 17.

“And precisely because of this, and precisely because the Constitution likewise allows Congress, not the impeachment court, Congress to promulgate its own rules, which is what the Senate did on June 3. We promulgated, we proposed amendments to the rules under our rulemaking power, which, by the way, was subsequently ratified when we convened in a special session on June 17. The June 3 Journal was ratified unanimously on June 17 when we had our special session. And in the June 3 minutes and the Journal, precisely, we approved the amendments to the rules. This was further ratified on June 17. Therefore, it is considered regular. The presumption of regularity now comes into fore,” Pangilinan said.

The senator noted that the issue had already been brought before the Supreme Court and said the impeachment court was not the proper forum to debate it.

“But having said that, Mr. President, the good gentleman from Taguig has brought this matter before the Supreme Court. And we agree with the point earlier raised by the Senate President. This matter should be either discussed in the Senate, in plenary, as a legislative body, or if he has questions which may in fact turn out to be valid, he has brought this matter before the Supreme Court,” he said.

“And therefore, this impeachment court is not the venue for this debate, Mr. President. If there is anyone who is out of order, with due respect, I think the proper process is the matter is pending before the Supreme Court,” Pangilinan added.

He also pointed out that no temporary restraining order or status quo ante order had been issued that would prevent the impeachment court from proceeding.

“There is no temporary restraining order. There was a request for a status quo ante order. It was not granted. And therefore, the presumption of regularity behooves us as an impeachment court to proceed,” he said.

Pangilinan concluded by reiterating that the point of order raised on the matter was improper.

“And finally, Mr. President, allow me to reiterate, the point of order is improper. In fact, the debate on this matter here in the impeachment court is out of order, Mr. President,” he said.