The Senate Electoral Tribunal’s (SET) decision to affirm the dismissal of a petition to unseat Senator Erwin Tulfo over alleged citizenship issues was largely anticipated — the March ruling was anchored on insufficiency in form — but the votes of three senator-members favoring Tulfo’s ouster was not.
In a statement signed by SET Secretary Luis Jose Geronimo, the tribunal said it denied the motion for reconsideration (MR) filed by petitioner Berteni Causing, seeking to reverse its March 2 ruling summarily dismissing his quo warranto petition for being “insufficient in form.”
The SET said the MR was filed beyond the prescribed period and “failed to comply with the filing and service requirements of the 2020 SET Rules.”
The nine-member tribunal convened at the Senate on Friday, October 16, with the Supreme Court (SC) justices and senator-members in attendance. Six SET members voted to deny the MR, while three opposed the dismissal, reportedly minority senators Robin Padilla, Pia Cayetano, and Camille Villar.
SC Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen chairs the SET, with SC justices Henri Jean Paul Inting and Ramon Paul Hernando serving as members. Senators Kiko Pangilinan, Bam Aquino, and Lito Lapid represent the majority bloc in the tribunal while Padilla, Cayetano, and Villar represent the Senate minority.
“Let’s give credit to the three SC justice-members and the other three senator-members who undoubtedly knew the obvious procedural flaw which resulted in a 6-3 vote, thus dismissing the MR,” Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson said over the weekend.
Lacson, without naming the three minority senators, questioned their decision to favor what he described as an “out-of-time MR filed by a petitioner without legal standing.”
“Justice and fairness went out of the window when three minority senator-members voted in favor of an out-of-time motion for reconsideration filed by a petitioner without legal standing,” Lacson said in a social media post.
“Their motive may be deeper than personal issues against Sen Tulfo,” he added.
Tulfo has repeatedly clashed with minority senators in the months spanning Alan Peter Cayetano’s tumultuous Senate presidency, the subsequent leadership change, and the ongoing impeachment trial.
In June, Tulfo called out then-Senate president Alan, calling him “thick-skinned” for skipping Senate session for a second consecutive day, along with minority senators, preventing the upper chamber from holding sessions due to a lack of quorum. At the time, Cayetano said they would not attend the session to keep control of the Senate blue ribbon committee and other panels.
During the impeachment trial, Tulfo questioned whether the proceedings were the proper venue for senator-judges to discuss their personal legal issues. This came after Padilla denied allegations that he had ignored an Ombudsman order related to complaints accusing him of obstruction of justice.
Tulfo also figured in a heated exchange with Villar during a debate on whether to revisit the threshold for convicting an impeachable official.
Villar took offense and became emotional when she defended colleagues from Tulfo’s remarks that the framers of the 1987 Constitution did not anticipate that future senator-judges could face corruption-related cases, such as plunder and theft.
Asked to comment on the 6-3 vote at the SET, Tulfo did not confirm the names of those who voted against him but said he was “hurt.”
“We were hurt. As you can see, we were all interacting with each other and then suddenly, they will do that. We’re a bit sad but that is their right. I mean, what can we do?… Kung ‘yun ang pananaw nila, then so be it. Ipagpasa-Diyos na lamang natin (If that is their view, then so be it. I leave it up to God),” he said in an interview on Monday, October 19.
Tulfo was more candid on Facebook, where he shared an editorial illustration depicting himself being stabbed in the back by knife-wielding arms labeled “Sens. Padilla, Villar, Pia.”
“Nakita ko lang (I just saw this)…. tsk, tsk, tsk,” he said in his post on Saturday, October 17.
What other “deeper motive” could there be, as suggested by Lacson? Where could a senator’s removal from office have any significant impact?
If one were to consider the impeachment trial, had the SET removed Tulfo from office, the number of active senator-judges participating in the trial would have fallen to 19. Based on the denominator, 15 votes would have been needed to convict Duterte, while five votes would have resulted in her acquittal. – Rappler.com