Dela Rosa says he drafted Senate resolution dismissing VP Sara's impeachment

MANILA, Philippines – Senator Bato dela Rosa said on Wednesday, June 4, that he was the source of the draft Senate resolution seeking to dismiss Vice President You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.‘s impeachment case.

“That’s my own initiative. Galing lang ‘yan sa akin,” Dela Rosa told reporters when asked about the source of the purported Senate resolution. He added that the Vice President was unaware that his office was drafting the document.

Dela Rosa claimed there were at least three different drafts of a Senate resolution seeking the dismissal of the impeachment case but did not provide specific details. Earlier on Wednesday, Senator Imee Marcos also said she had seen three different draft resolutions with the same purpose.

The purported draft Senate resolution argues that the Senate had violated the Constitution by failing to act on the impeachment articles when they were transmitted to the upper chamber on February 5 — the Senate’s last session day before Congress went on a three-month recess.
The House of Representatives You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. the Vice President on the same day, after 215 lawmakers fast-tracked a fourth impeachment complaint through a resolution.


Dela Rosa said the Senate resolution could be taken up next week after incorporating input from other senators. But it’s also possible that this could be discussed in the plenary on Wednesday, the last session day of the week.

The senator, a staunch Duterte ally, said that even if his resolution fails to gain enough support, he is proud to have taken a stand on the matter. During the campaign, the reelected senator had promised to block the impeachment of the Vice President.

“Whether or not makakuha ako ng supporta ng majority, I am confident that I make a stand as far as this issue is concerned,” he said.

Minority Leader Koko Pimentel, a lawyer, said that upon seeing the document, he thought it was unreal because it contained “flawed logic.”

“Big chance not authentic. Even the quotation of the constitutional provision is not accurate,” Pimentel said, without citing which part in the document was inaccurate.


Dela Rosa, for their part, said that the draft Senate resolution was prepared and researched thoroughly by his office’s legislative unit. “May kanya-kanya tayong opinyon. Pinag-aralan,” he said. (We each have our own opinions. It has been studied.)

ML Representative-elect Leila de Lima, who has been chosen as a member of the prosecution team in the impeachment trial, said the You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. before it can dismiss the impeachment complaint.

Source: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

 

[BicycleHorse]

Mahahalata mo talaga dito kung sino mga politicians ang may alam sa Constitution.

 

[plhbg1]

Mahahalata mo talaga dito kung sino mga politicians ang may alam sa Constitution.

haha constitution? kahit di pa yan mag work ang resolution ni bato patungong scrap pa din yan ang impeachment given the time left for 19th congress, di na nila matatapos yan

 

[sanskuro]

îllégâl Yan at labag sa constitution

 

[plhbg1]

îllégâl Yan at labag sa constitution

san ko makikita na bawal gumawa ng resolution ang senado bossing? haha

 

[BicycleHorse]

haha constitution? kahit di pa yan mag work ang resolution ni bato patungong scrap pa din yan ang impeachment given the time left for 19th congress, di na nila matatapos yan

Sobrang weak at wala naman substantial basis yung resolution ni Bato, the Constitution does not explicitly set a deadline for the Senate to act on impeachment articles. Maliwanag sa Constitution na ang Senate, as an impeachment court, lang ang pwede mag-dismiss ng case, hindi through some resolution.

 

[plhbg1]

Sobrang weak at wala naman substantial basis yung resolution ni Bato, the Constitution does not explicitly set a deadline for the Senate to act on impeachment articles. Maliwanag sa Constitution na ang Senate, as an impeachment court, lang ang pwede mag-dismiss ng case, hindi through some resolution.

yes wala sa constitiution but meron tayong supreme court in which their rulings become unwritten laws, in the supreme court ruling on the case of Neri vs. Senate it is very clear that the "forthwith" is only confined within the constitutional life span of a legislative body (in this case the 19th congress). once a congress exhausted their constitutional life, all matters at hand will exactly die with it

 

[sanskuro]

san ko makikita na bawal gumawa ng resolution ang senado bossing? haha

Ang sinasabi ko labag sa constitution ang resolution na magbabasura sa impeachment

 

[BicycleHorse]

yes wala sa constitiution but meron tayong supreme court in which their rulings become unwritten laws, in the supreme court ruling on the case of Neri vs. Senate it is very clear that the "forthwith" is only confined within the constitutional life span of a legislative body (in this case the 19th congress). once a congress exhausted their constitutional life, all matters at hand will exactly die with it

wala sa Constitution ang deadline sa Senate to act sa impeachment, pero maling mali naman yung sinabi mong Neri vs. Senate ruling tungkol sa forthwith at lifespan ng Congress. That case is about legislative inquiries and executive privilege, hindi impeachment.

Walang Supreme Court ruling na nagsasabing dead agad ang impeachment pagkatapos ng 19th Congress. Impeachment is a judicial process at hindi legistative, hindi lang basta bill na nalalapse. Wag natin i-assume na auto-die agad yun. Senate as impeachment court lang ang may power mag-dismiss, not some resolution ni Bato na mukha pang intern sa senado.

 

[plhbg1]

Ang sinasabi ko labag sa constitution ang resolution na magbabasura sa impeachment

at ang tinatanong ko nga sayo ay saan ko yan makikita sa constitution haha

That case is about legislative inquiries and executive privilege, hindi impeachment.

alam ko haha but the ruling is not judging only on the topic but it includes declaration that "all matters" handled by the legislative body dies with the body upon end of life of the said body

Impeachment is a judicial process at hindi legistative, hindi lang basta bill na nalalapse.

haha hindi nga yan specific about impeachment but part of the ruling speaks about the bigger picture which is the life span of a legislative body, 19th congress and the 20th congress are not the same body

 

[BicycleHorse]

alam ko haha but the ruling is not judging only on the topic but it includes declaration that "all matters" handled by the legislative body dies with the body upon end of life of the said body

haha hindi nga yan specific about impeachment but part of the ruling speaks about the bigger picture which is the life span of a legislative body, 19th congress and the 20th congress are not the same body

Saan part dun na nagsasabing “all matters” die with a Congress? That case is about legislative inquiries, not impeachment or Congress lifespan. You oversimplifies the distinction between legislative and judicial processes.

Saka kelan pa ba naging part ng Legislative ang Impeachment? Kahti anu pang twisted narratives mo, Impeachment still falls on the Judicial, not a Legislative.

Btw, medyo irrelevant yung case ni Neri vs. Senate sa impeachment proceedings. Because it deals only with the Senate’s legislative inquiry powers, not its role as an impeachment court.

 

[plhbg1]

Saan part dun na nagsasabing “all matters” die with a Congress? That case is about legislative inquiries, not impeachment or Congress lifespan. You oversimplifies the distinction between legislative and judicial processes.

let me quote the exact statement: "while the Senate as an institution exists continuously, the "business" of one Congress generally does not carry over to the next Congress"

Saka kelan pa ba naging part ng Legislative ang Impeachment? Kahti anu pang twisted narratives mo, Impeachment still falls on the Judicial, not a Legislative.

let me also correct you on that, impeachment is not a judicial process, it is a quasi-judicial process that even the supreme court cannot intervene with the process for as long as it is compliant with the constitution

Btw, medyo irrelevant yung case ni Neri vs. Senate sa impeachment proceedings. Because it deals only with the Senate’s legislative inquiry powers, not its role as an impeachment court.

yes irrelevant yung case mismo, it is the ruling that is relevant, not the case haha

 

[BicycleHorse]

let me quote the exact statement: "while the Senate as an institution exists continuously, the "business" of one Congress generally does not carry over to the next Congress"

nice try pero mali pa rin ‘yung application mo. Tama ‘yung sinabi ng ruling na “business” ng isang Congress doesn’t carry over, pero that’s for legislative stuff like bills, not impeachment. Impeachment is quasi-judicial, hindi legislative “business.” Neri is about Senate inquiries, not trials.

let me also correct you on that, impeachment is not a judicial process, it is a quasi-judicial process that even the supreme court cannot intervene with the process for as long as it is compliant with the constitution

you’re still missing my point: impeachment’s not legislative, so Bato’s resolution is weak. Tama ka na the Supreme Court can’t meddle if the Senate follows the Constitution, but they can step in if may due process violations. Hindi talaga absolute ‘yung “no intervention.” Impeachment’s quasi-judicial nature means Senate acts like a court, not a law-making body. Kaya nga irrelevant ‘yung mga twisted legislative arguments mo.

yes irrelevant yung case mismo, it is the ruling that is relevant, not the case haha

anong “ruling is relevant” yan The ruling’s about legislative inquiries, not impeachment. Kahit anong pa-spin mo, walang part dun na tumutukoy sa Senate as impeachment court. Neri talks about Congress “business” like bills, not quasi-judicial trials. Impeachment’s a different game, and your ruling argument doesn’t fit.

 

[plhbg1]

nice try pero mali pa rin ‘yung application mo. Tama ‘yung sinabi ng ruling na “business” ng isang Congress doesn’t carry over, pero that’s for legislative stuff like bills, not impeachment. Impeachment is quasi-judicial, hindi legislative “business.” Neri is about Senate inquiries, not trials.

haha saang congress ba yan na legislative stuff lang yung tanging business ng congress haha

you’re still missing my point: impeachment’s not legislative, so Bato’s resolution is weak. Tama ka na the Supreme Court can’t meddle if the Senate follows the Constitution, but they can step in if may due process violations. Hindi talaga absolute ‘yung “no intervention.” Impeachment’s quasi-judicial nature means Senate acts like a court, not a law-making body. Kaya nga irrelevant ‘yung mga twisted legislative arguments mo.

as i've said hindi nga judicial process ang impeachment, it is quasi-judicial and it is also political which makes the senate as sole court for impeachment, they have the super exclusive power over impeachment

anong “ruling is relevant” yan The ruling’s about legislative inquiries, not impeachment. Kahit anong pa-spin mo, walang part dun na tumutukoy sa Senate as impeachment court. Neri talks about Congress “business” like bills, not quasi-judicial trials. Impeachment’s a different game, and your ruling argument doesn’t fit.

haha both the legislative inquiry and impeachment are performed by the same body so whatever is judged to that body regardless of which task they performed is obviously applying to the the same body hah

 

[BicycleHorse]

haha saang congress ba yan na legislative stuff lang yung tanging business ng congress haha

Your sarcasm doesn’t change na Neri’s about legislative inquiries, hindi trials. Walang Congress na ginawang legislative ang impeachment. Neri vs. Senate talks about Congress’s “business” like bills and inquiries, not impeachment.

as i've said hindi nga judicial process ang impeachment, it is quasi-judicial and it is also political which makes the senate as sole court for impeachment, they have the super exclusive power over impeachment

kinorek mo na naman ‘yung judicial vs. quasi-judicial, pero I already said impeachment’s quasi-judicial. Wala talagang kwenta yung resolution ni Bato. Tama ka na the Senate’s the sole court for VP Sara’s trial but the Supreme Court can step in if may due process violations.

haha both the legislative inquiry and impeachment are performed by the same body so whatever is judged to that body regardless of which task they performed is obviously applying to the the same body hah

Same body man ang Senate, pero different roles. Neri vs. Senate is about legislative inquiries, not impeachment trials. Saan mo naman napulot yang idea na yan? Haha. You can’t just lump them together.

 

[plhbg1]

Your sarcasm doesn’t change na Neri’s about legislative inquiries, hindi trials. Walang Congress na ginawang legislative ang impeachment. Neri vs. Senate talks about Congress’s “business” like bills and inquiries, not impeachment.

haha di naman ako nag a argue about sa legislative inquiry kasi totoo naman yan, yung argument ko is that the ruling rules the congress as a legislative body

kinorek mo na naman ‘yung judicial vs. quasi-judicial, pero I already said impeachment’s quasi-judicial. Wala talagang kwenta yung resolution ni Bato. Tama ka na the Senate’s the sole court for VP Sara’s trial but the Supreme Court can step in if may due process violations.

haha quasi-judicial is not within the scope of judiciary since it is a pseudo-judicial in a sense, kaya senate is the only constitutional court for impeachment and there is no other courts even the real courts has no such power

Same body man ang Senate, pero different roles. Neri vs. Senate is about legislative inquiries, not impeachment trials. Saan mo naman napulot yang idea na yan? Haha. You can’t just lump them together.

yung body nga ang hinusgahan at hindi yung roles haha

 

[BicycleHorse]

haha di naman ako nag a argue about sa legislative inquiry kasi totoo naman yan, yung argument ko is that the ruling rules the congress as a legislative body

nice try spinning Neri to cover all Congress stuff, Neri vs. Senate is about inquiries, sobrang off na yung “rules” Congress as a whole.

haha quasi-judicial is not within the scope of judiciary since it is a pseudo-judicial in a sense, kaya senate is the only constitutional court for impeachment and there is no other courts even the real courts has no such power

wow spin pa more. Tinawag mong “super exclusive” before, ngayon “pseudo-judicial” outside the judiciary? lol. Quasi-judicial’s still constitutional; Supreme Court can check due process.

yung body nga ang hinusgahan at hindi yung roles haha

hahaha, you already admitted na irrelevant sa impeachment yung case ni Neri dito, yet you still insist its ruling applies to the Senate as a “body”. You are contradicting your own statement. Patawa ka talaga hahaha

 

[plhbg1]

nice try spinning Neri to cover all Congress stuff, Neri vs. Senate is about inquiries, sobrang off na yung “rules” Congress as a whole.

hindi nga ako nag-o-oppose diyan haha kasi totoo naman talagang about sa inquiries yung case haha yung argument ko is yung verdict ng supreme court at hindi yung case mismo haha

wow spin pa more. Tinawag mong “super exclusive” before, ngayon “pseudo-judicial” outside the judiciary? lol. Quasi-judicial’s still constitutional; Supreme Court can check due process.

yes ginagamit ko na lahat ng words para maging clear sayo na exclusive lang ang impeachment sa senate at walang ibang may capability maging impeachment court haha basahin mo kasi ang constitution especially article 9 section 3 paragraph 6

hahaha, you already admitted na irrelevant sa impeachment yung case ni Neri dito, yet you still insist its ruling applies to the Senate as a “body”. You are contradicting your own statement. Patawa ka talaga hahaha

yung case nga ang irrelevant, hindi yung ruling haha

 

[vrentt_25]

Mahahalata mo talaga dito kung sino mga politicians ang may alam sa Constitution.

bat kami maniniwala sayo?senador kaba?abogado kaba? mas mainam wag ituloy yan kasi wala din sila mapapala kung yan bang impeachment eh napatunayang walang sala si vp sarah susuportahan mo prin yang mga nag akusa sa kanya? o tuloy parin support mo, ang daming naka pending na batas na need unahin para sa tao,ang gusto nyo unahin eh impeachment?magkano n nman mauubos dyan tapos sa huli wala din pla napala?mah isip isip kayo

 

[dee-u]

bat kami maniniwala sayo?senador kaba?abogado kaba? mas mainam wag ituloy yan kasi wala din sila mapapala kung yan bang impeachment eh napatunayang walang sala si vp sarah susuportahan mo prin yang mga nag akusa sa kanya? o tuloy parin support mo, ang daming naka pending na batas na need unahin para sa tao,ang gusto nyo unahin eh impeachment?magkano n nman mauubos dyan tapos sa huli wala din pla napala?mah isip isip kayo

Si Koko Pimentel, abogado at Senador, naniniwala ka ba sa kanya?

yes wala sa constitiution but meron tayong supreme court in which their rulings become unwritten laws, in the supreme court ruling on the case of Neri vs. Senate it is very clear that the "forthwith" is only confined within the constitutional life span of a legislative body (in this case the 19th congress). once a congress exhausted their constitutional life, all matters at hand will exactly die with it

Na-curious lang ako dito paps, anong kaso ba ito? Baka makabigay ka ng source? Probably, hindi ito tungkol sa impeachment?