From the Website of INQUIRER
links https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2315005/palace-on-sc-petitions
Marcos ‘respects’ SC dismissal of petitions vs impeachment vote
At a briefing on Thursday, Castro said the high court likely found that the petitioners lacked legal standing and did not have a sufficient personal or legal interest to bring the case.
“First of all, the decision regarding the clarification of the phrase ‘all members of the Senate’ came from the Senate itself. So, whatever action the Senate has taken on this matter, as well as whatever decision the Supreme Court has made, the president and the administration will respect,” said Castro when asked for a comment on the decision.
“As for the issue of prematurity, the Supreme Court likely also saw that there was not yet any indication that the alleged harm could occur because the situation had not yet reached the point where there was any reason for concern,” she also said.
The SC, sitting as en banc, junked on Wednesday the petitions separately filed by former Executive Secretary Victor Rodriguez, constitutional lawyer Ernesto Francisco Jr., and disbarred lawyer Berteni Causing on procedural grounds, including lack of standing and being premature.
Their petitions challenged the Sept. 23 ruling, which interpreted the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds vote of “all the members of the Senate” to mean senators legally and factually capable of participating in the proceedings when the judgment is made.
The impeachment court’s 13-1 vote effectively changed the denominator for determining the two-thirds threshold. If only 20 senator-judges were eligible to participate when judgment is rendered, 14 votes would be needed for conviction instead of 16. /das
links
PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
“First of all, the decision regarding the clarification of the phrase ‘all members of the Senate’ came from the Senate itself. So, whatever action the Senate has taken on this matter, as well as whatever decision the Supreme Court has made, the president and the administration will respect,” said Castro when asked for a comment on the decision.
“As for the issue of prematurity, the Supreme Court likely also saw that there was not yet any indication that the alleged harm could occur because the situation had not yet reached the point where there was any reason for concern,” she also said.
The SC, sitting as en banc, junked on Wednesday the petitions separately filed by former Executive Secretary Victor Rodriguez, constitutional lawyer Ernesto Francisco Jr., and disbarred lawyer Berteni Causing on procedural grounds, including lack of standing and being premature.
Their petitions challenged the Sept. 23 ruling, which interpreted the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds vote of “all the members of the Senate” to mean senators legally and factually capable of participating in the proceedings when the judgment is made.
The impeachment court’s 13-1 vote effectively changed the denominator for determining the two-thirds threshold. If only 20 senator-judges were eligible to participate when judgment is rendered, 14 votes would be needed for conviction instead of 16. /das
INQUIRER NEWS
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net
links
OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS PROMOTIONS WEBSITES
Human Rights Advocacy Promotions | Human Rights
Home - Human rights Promotions Website
HUMAN RIGHTS PROMOTIONS
Human Rights Advocacy Promotions | Human Rights
Home - Human rights Promotions Website
HUMAN RIGHTS PROMOTIONS
PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
