Absence as disrespect
On July 13, Sen. Peter Alan Cayetano raised hell when the prosecution in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte requested that the testimony of National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Melvin Matibag be moved up in the trial schedule.
Matibag had earlier written to House lead prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro requesting that his testimony before the Senate impeachment court be scheduled ahead of July 20, because he was preparing to attend a regional summit on transnational crime hosted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Royal Thai Police in Bangkok, Thailand on July 21 and 22.
But Cayetano was having none of it. A government official, he said, should not dictate the schedule of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court. “I find it in bad taste that a bureau head will dictate to us that he’s not available,” Cayetano huffed.
“We will be here 30 weeks. We have put aside many, many important things. We have put aside many foreign trips, many local trips … because we have to be here 2 o’clock until matapos tayo (we finish),” he added.
Cayetano got his wish. Matibag had to skip the Thailand conference, and he took the witness stand on July 21 and 22.
Crucial 13th vote
Set aside the fact that Cayetano had earlier been feuding with Matibag over the NBI’s attempt to serve an arrest warrant on May 11 against Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, whose surprise appearance in the Senate after some six months’ absence provided the crucial 13th vote that briefly seated Cayetano as Senate president. Devoid of political color, Cayetano’s objection against a rearranged Matibag schedule and insistence on giving the impeachment trial of the Vice President one’s full commitment and focus seemed right and reasonable.
This was no ordinary Senate business, after all. No less than the second highest official of the land was being impeached for a number of alleged high crimes, and her fitness for office placed under official scrutiny, the results of which could see her removed from her post and perpetually disqualified from holding office. Yes, subordinating “many, many important things” to give the impeachment trial the utmost priority was the least the Senate, the senator-judges, the witnesses, and the entire country could do to ensure the integrity and probity of the proceedings.
At the most basic level, the senator-judges have a duty to be present at every trial session, so they could personally hear the testimonies and evidence presented, see with their own eyes the demeanor of witnesses, and propound their own questions to further clarify the grave issues being raised against the Vice President.
Constitutional obligation
Cayetano, a stickler for rules and order, should be the first to know this. Alas, since Aug. 11, he has been a no-show at the trial. Ordinarily one of the most loquacious on the floor, the Senate minority leader was once again marked absent on Monday in both the impeachment trial and the plenary session, with no notice from his office to account for the absences.
He is not the only one seemingly being cavalier about their constitutional obligation to serve as senator-judges. There are no other officials in government mandated to do this duty, and yet Sen. Loren Legarda has also been absent from the proceedings for some two weeks now, beginning on Aug. 3.
Legarda departed the country for France on Aug. 2, along with her son, Batangas Rep. Leandro Leviste, ostensibly for health reasons. The senator filed a medical leave with the Senate secretariat first for the period Aug. 3 to 5, then for Aug. 11 to 12, and this week for yet another extension from Aug. 17 to 19.
Legarda’s website touts that she “is one of only two senators with experience in three impeachment trials, having taken part in the proceedings against President Joseph Estrada from November 2000 to January 2001, Chief Justice Renato Corona from December 2011 to May 2012, and Vice President Sara Duterte in July 2025.” (The other senator is Sen. Vicente “Tito” Sotto III.)
Two-thirds vote
“Her continuity of experience offers valuable perspective in a chamber where many senators are confronting the demands of the impeachment process for the first time,” the writeup added.
That unique experience may yet prove useful to the Duterte impeachment trial, if only Legarda hasn’t been missing in action—a glaring absence that, like Cayetano’s, is increasingly looking like disrespect and contempt for the proceedings that happen to involve their political ally.
At this point, with Cayetano and Legarda’s continuing ghosting act as they face probes for irregularities, it is but fair to ask whether the Senate impeachment court should stick to presiding officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero’s ruling that a two-thirds vote affirming impeachment requires at least 16 votes from 24 senator-judges. With Dela Rosa a fugitive, Senators Rodante Marcoleta and Jinggoy Estrada in prison, and now Cayetano and Legarda all but abandoning their duty to be present at the trial, how can they render fair judgment in the end? Why should their votes count at all?
******
Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber
