Health News Channel Mali
SEE OTHER BRANDS

Get your fresh news on health and wellness in Mali

Transcript of interview of Senate Minority Leader Vicente Sotto III on Dateline Philippines

PHILIPPINES, August 4 - Press Release
August 4, 2025

Transcript of interview of Senate Minority Leader Vicente Sotto III
August 4, 2025
Dateline Philippines with Karmina Constantino

Link: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16q4e2275z/
Timestamp: 16:48-48:20

Host:

Senator Sotto, good afternoon to you. Thanks for joining us today. Welcome to the program.

VST:

My pleasure, Karmina. Thank you very much for the invitation. Good afternoon.

Host:

All right. Two days from now, the Senate will decide on whether or not the impeachment trial should proceed. Last I checked, Senator Sotto, there were only two affirmatives in the minority. What is happening as we speak?

VST:

Well, we expect that the members listen to the different perspectives as far as the decision of the Supreme Court is concerned. At the outset, if you have not read the decision and you just merely hear that there is a so-called Supreme Court decision, that the impeachment, articles of impeachment that should be dismissed, or as far as the motion in the Senate might come up with a motion to dismiss it, then perhaps you might believe it. But if you read through the decision, and hopefully many members of the Senate will be able to read the 97-page decision, there are a number of inconsistencies.

There are a number of points, facts, that obviously the decision was done without oral arguments, without consulting Congress, without consulting the legislative branch. So I expect that when the time comes that there is this motion to be filed, we will object, and we will ask our colleagues to listen why we are objecting. That's about it, Karmina.

Host:

So you now head the minority, and there are five of you there, but again, last I checked, it's only you and Senator Risa who are going to object to the termination of the trial or dismissing the trial. What's happening to the other three?

VST:

I don't know where that number came from, but I've been hearing some points also from my other colleagues. There are questions that are being posed by Senator Pia Cayetano, Senator Lacson, Senator Bam Aquino, Senator Pangilinan. So it's not just Risa and I who are asking questions about it and perhaps preparing to interpolate on Wednesday.

You see, there is a very important point that I would like to bring up right away in the decision. Just one small point as far as they're concerned, but it has a very big implication on the decision and the motion that we're about to tackle.

Host:

And what's that point?

VST:

For example, the Supreme Court decision, if you will read it, the Ponente, Justice Leonen, he said that the first three complaints have been archived because of the adjournment of the 19th Congress. The date of adjournment, he said, is February 5. Adjournment is not an adjournment sine die and no bills are archived, especially an article of impeachment.

Nothing is archived when there is an adjournment, an adjournment sine die only. When the 19th Congress dies, that is the time that there is an adjournment sine die. And therefore, all the bills, all the resolutions, all the committee reports, articles of whatever, agreements, even the petitions, they all are archived on the adjournment sine die, never on the adjournment for a break.

So apparently, the Ponente is unfamiliar with congressional rules. Therefore, that part of the decision alone, silang mga abogado may kasabihan. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

false in one thing, false in all. Doon pala, mali na. So we have to tackle that.

We have to discuss that and we have to tell our colleagues to look into that. Not only that, there are two or three other points in the decision that should be questioned.

Host:

And come August 6, are you confident that this will be decided upon, not in a way that it's minority versus majority, but are you confident that this will cross that line? As you mentioned, there are names in the majority who might vote against the objection or who will object to the motion. Go ahead.

VST:

Yes, hopefully, hopefully. We're keeping our fingers crossed that they listen to the debates, the interpellations, and that perhaps we could not, we need not decide on the motion to dismiss. If ever there is a motion to dismiss, that will be fine.

We may appeal to them to wait for the MR, wait for the decision of the motion for reconsideration. Because otherwise, if we decide on something and then the Supreme Court reverses itself, and it has happened before, huwag nila sasabihin na hindi nagre-reverse ang Supreme Court pagka unanimous ganyan. E papano kung unanimous mistake? They do. They reverse themselves.

There are a number of bills, law decisions that we can name that they have reversed themselves in the past.

Host:

And this is exactly what the House of Representatives is appealing to the Senate, na mag hinay-hinay, to tread softly, tread carefully before making any decisions. And you think that's going to be the more prudent tact?

VST:

Hopefully, hopefully, Karmina, because, for example, my position, my position, this is not about Sara. It's about the preservation of the Philippine Constitution. Yun ang, worry ko dun eh.

The present case is of no moment, so to speak. The important thing is that there are amendments to the Constitution by this Supreme Court decision. The issue of doctrine of operative facts, tama ang sinagabi ni Justice Ascuna, the retired Justice Ascuna, there will be a new definition of the doctrine of operative facts if you read through the decision.

And what happens if that is into the books of the Philippines? Ang mangyayari, the impeachment of Erap and the impeachment of Justice Corona becomes null and void. Magiging null and void based on this Supreme Court decision. Because this decision, binubura yung Option 3, in the Constitution.

That's what the impeachment is concerned. And what worries me is that if this happens, wala na may impeach. Believe me, wala nang mai-impeach.

I'm sure the Philconsa and the other lawyers, once they read through it, hihirap eh. Mamawala ang option three. This decision practically amends the Philippine Constitution.

And that's what I'm worried about. I'm not worried about Sara, guilty, not guilty. It's not about that.

Host:

Which is precisely why I want to ask you the next question. I mean, you've been known as someone who says no to shortcuts. Ayaw na ayaw niyo po yan pag nagkakaroon ng mga shortcuts.

And when you read through the 97-page ruling, shouldn't you also read it as something that is also against shortcuts, putting process over personality? Kasi yan din po yung basa ng iba, na hindi binubura yung option three. Pero kung may ganitong proseso sa mga nakaraang option, those should be present as well in option three so that it won't be more political than anything.

Go ahead po, Senator, your thoughts.

VST:

Thank you for that. I'm glad you asked that question. First, why was Option 3 placed in the Constitution? Ask the constitutionalists. Ask them why they placed it there. Because it has to have, the impeachment has to have something like that.

It's not a shortcut, but what we call in basketball, pass-break. Why? Why?

Why is the reason for this? What if the president is selling us to China? You cannot impeach him right away?

You must remove him from office right away. If somebody is committing a grave abuse of discretion or grave sin or criminal offense, you cannot remove him right away? You will have to go under the due process?

That is the reason for the third option na one-third lang ng Congress ay pwede na. That is not just our law, hindi sa atin yan, nasa iba mga mga bansa, ganoon din. Because you need that. You need that to preserve the country.

Host:

But Senator, you as well, as we all know, you're a student of history as well and you've seen many things happen in this country wherein the political elite dictate the trajectory of the country. Hindi ba pag-aayos itong naging desisyon ng Korte Suprema, hindi ba ito pag-aayos dun sa ganitong klaseng exploitation na pwedeng mangyari dito sa option three? Go ahead po.

VST:

Hindi po. Hindi po ako naniniwala. As a matter of fact, nakikita ko sa mangyayari, wala nang ma-impeach.

Pinahirap. Anong nangyayari ngayon diyan? Bigyan kita ng example gagad.

Somebody is set to file an impeachment against the Ombudsman. May kaibigan o congressman ang Ombudsman na alam may magpapile. Uunahan niya ngayon ng walang kakwentang-kwentang charge sa Ombudsman.

Nauna na yan. Based on this Supreme Court decision wala na ang pangalawa. Wala na ang iba.

May nauna na. Ganoon yan. Ang dami palamuti ng desisyon pero pag pinasama mo yan ang ibig sabihin noon.

So when the framers of the Constitution placed option three, it is an important asset to the Constitution for abusive officials, for abusive and powerful government officials.

Host:

Lastly, sham complaints, for example, those that are not verified should be dismissed immediately even if endorsed. Complaints that are not properly endorsed by a member of the House of Representatives within a reasonable period should also be dismissed. These types of dismissals will not trigger the one-year ban.

Hindi po ba ito sufficient enough to serve as a barrier against these sham complaints that you mentioned?

VST:

I don't think so. Because they can come up with not looking like a sham complaint. I think there was a portion there that you mentioned na kailangan may congressman na mag-endorse.

Eh madaling kumuha noon. Madaling gawin yun. So it will be very tricky.

Believe me. Read it again. Come up with something that you need to file an impeachment to a particular official.

Hihihirap yan.

Host:

It got me thinking as well. During the time that you sent it, ang sabi niyo po, 1987 Constitution, Article 11, Section 3, no impeachment--Section 35, is it? No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.

Ang sabi niyo po, wala lang, just a reminder to everyone concerned. That was sent out, I believe, November 26, 2024. The first impeachment complaint against the vice president was filed December 4.

Ano pong naiisip nun ng mga panahon na yon? Did you foresee a scenario that eventually it will come to that? That there will be several complaints filed against the vice president and you were warning them against it? Senator.

VST:

Something to that effect. I'm trying to recall that particular--what particularly made me say that. I think I was discussing something with another--with a fellow candidate.

And if I'm not mistaken, it was Senator Lacson. And specifically, we wanted--I wanted that people look into the Article 11 of the Constitution, which speaks of abuse, which speaks of impeachment, removal of public officials. I think that's what triggered me to specifically tweet that.

Host:

Now there was another tweet that you sent out. Ang sabi niyo po, the Senate, parang hindi pa na-refer sa--ito, ito, ito. Let me just get it.

I just learned that the impeachment transmitted by the House of Representatives last February has never been referred to the Senate Rules Committee. Ay, grabe, yun po ang sinabi ninyo. Yes.

How is this not comparable to the first three impeachment complaints not being forwarded to the House Justice Committee? Kasi nung mga panahon din pong yon, nagbabanta yung mga tao, kailan ba ito i-refer? Kailan ba ito i-forward sa House Justice Committee?

How would you compare the two?

VST:

Okay. In my opinion, they were not ready until February 5 when they--they were not ready with the Articles of Impeachment. When they submitted it to the Senate in February 5, 4.15 p.m., the Senate president and the Senate president's office received it. What I'm saying in that particular state is that they had enough time to refer it to the Committee on Rules. The proper action of the Senate president or the presiding officer at that time, once you receive an Article of Impeachment from--or any bill, actually, or any communication from the House of Representatives, your counterpart, you must inform the body. So you inform the body and Articles of Impeachment, that piece of paper that is important, as important as an impeachment, should have been referred to the Committee on Rules on February 5.

They adjourned at 6.55 p.m. without doing so. So na-dribble yung impeachment until June. Pagdating ng June 12--I'm sorry, June 3, they convened as an impeachment court.

Nag-rogue pa sila. They impeach and then they sent out summons to the prosecution and the defense. What do you call that?

That is convening the impeachment court. Di naman moro-moro yun na nagbihis-bihis, nag costume lang sila. Diba?

Transmittal to the Senate is already the verified complaint. Right.

Host:

I get that. I get that. Pero yung non-action po on the part of the House of Representatives regarding the first three complaints, because you're a stickler for rules, wala kayong nakikitang paglabag dun.

Tama lang yung ginawa ng House of Representatives. Sa pananaw niyo po?

VST:

Sa tingin ko, I will look at regularity as far as this is concerned. Siguro yung fourth, yung impeachment complaint na sinama nila, either sinama-sinama nila yung laman ng 1, 2, 3 or yung four lang ang tingin nila may baloro. Now, I do not want to talk off my hat.

I don't know what the 1, 2, 3 contained. I was not part of the House and I was not able to read what was in the 1, 2, 3. Ang alam ko lang, may article of impeachment na sinampa noong February 5.

So my position and ang kaalaman ko ay limitado doon. Okay.

Host:

Now back to August 6, kung saan po tayo nagsimula? How do you think it will all play out? Iba na po kasi ngayon eh.

You have your personal opinion. May pagninilay din ang nangyayari sa mga colleagues. As you said a while ago, hopefully it will cross the lines between majority and minority.

But there's also the sentiment of the public regarding this recent Supreme Court ruling. Do you think that will play into this as well? And it's not just a simple 20 majority voting to dismiss.

What do you think?

VST:

I think that will be a better thing because what I'm hearing is that the Supreme Court might call for oral arguments if a motion for reconsideration is filed. We may be able to say, lay it on the table and take it up once the motion for reconsideration is filed. I think that will be a better thing. I'm hoping na baka sakali maghintay kami. We're not going to dismiss the motion, vote against it, no. We will be able to say lay it on the table and take it up once the MR is considered.

Host:

Okay. Before we continue and talk about your idea of having a PRDA and what the PDEA and the Dangerous Drug Board are saying against it, I just want to get your sense of the current composition of the Senate in the 20th Congress. You've been here for quite a while, Senator Sotto.

Have you seen in all your years such strange alliances and lines being blurred in this current composition of the Senate? Marami na kayong nakita. Pero ito, is this the strangest you've seen in terms of alliances and composition?

Parang naglabo-labo po lahat.

VST:

Siguro yung 19th Congress, maybe. I was not part of it so I don't know. The 20th Congress, I have yet to see.

To answer your question, ibabalik ko. Noong araw, and what I stand for always, whether the President is Cory Aquino, Ramos, or even at the present Marcos Jr., the Senate must be independent, must remain independent. The integrity, the reputation of the Senate must be preserved.

Lagi yun ang position ko. So in your question, there is a possibility right now after this debate and all that, I will be able to answer your question in a better manner. Kasi I have yet to see if we will indeed remain independent or we will remain, a majority of us will act independent or independently.

Host:

Alright, fair enough, fair enough. And we shall wait for that. Now, on to the PRDA and the Dangerous Drug Enforcement Agency.

Is it to replace or is it going to be another agency?

VST:

Actually, it will be upgrading the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and the Dangerous Drugs Board into an authority. It will become a higher body. It will be directly under the office of the President.

Let me explain why. You must have the four major concerns. This is the only way you can fight illegal drugs. Hindi totoo yung sinasabi ng dating Presidente na 6 months. Todasin lahat. Wala yun, hindi totoo yun. Nung araw pa man alam kong hindi totoo yun. You must have the four major concerns. Enforcement. Prosecution. Rehabilitation. Prevention.

Enforcement, huliin niyo ang mga pusher. Prosecution, ikulong niyo. Pusher, small time, big time lahat.

Four, iyong mga hindi pa. Kaya nga importante ang prevention program. Sa akin, malakas na malakas dapat ang prevention program at rehabilitation program over these.

Sino ang in-charge of enforcement at the moment? PDEA and some of the anti-narcotics units of the Philippine National Police, sometimes NBI, but hindi coordinated fully with PDEA. Ang nangyari, ang interpretation ng mga nauupo sa PDEA, ako ang original author noon, ang interpretation nila, parang we established an elite unit against illegal drugs. Hindi.

Ang gusto ko dito sa PDEA would be supervisory. They will oversee. Ganoon dapat.

So ang enforcement, anong nangyari? So solo sila. The only time you need an elite force is if the area is compromised, if the PNP in the area is compromised.

So anong nangyayari ngayon? Hindi ma-successful. Madaming guling yan.

But prosecution, during the last 10 years, average prosecution success 85% dismissed. Bakit? Sinong in-charge niyan? DOJ? May kinalaman ba ang DDB at PDEA? Wala.

Magre-report lang sila. Sinong in charge? There are 48 rehabilitation centers in the Philippines. About 17 lang accredited ng DOH. Inasikaso ba ng DOH ito noong nakaraan? Hindi. Ano inasikaso? Pharmally.

Host:

So it's not to replace. Go ahead, prevention.

VST:

No, it's not replace. I'm not saying replace. It's the media says replace eh. I said, the law, the bill upgrades them. The fourth, to complete lang. Yung prevention, sino in-charge dapat ito? DepEd.

Department of Education. Bakit? Grade 4, 5, 6, 7 dapat may drug abuse resistance education program so the new 13-years-old will not go into it. They will know already what it's all about. It will destroy their future, their family, themselves. Nacocoordinate ba sa DDB? PDEA? Hindi. So this authority will put everything together in one cognitive machine.

Host:

It will cause more harm than good, sabi ng PDEA. Kasi nakita din po natin. May mga reports that even the PDEA at one point has been compromised. Senator?

VST:

When they say they will do more harm than good, hindi eh, hindi nila naintindihan ang batas. Hindi naexplika sa kanila ng mabuti eh. Nung nakausap ko nga sila, Greg mismo na, Pimentel na mga nakaupo doon, nung in-explain ako, naiintindi nila, oo nga tama, supervisory nga ang PDEA, Presidential Drug Enforcement Authority will be supervisory over enforcement, over prosecution, over rehabilitation, over prevention... Intindihin muna nila, akala ata nila mawawalan sila ng trabaho. Aangat nga sila eh. Aangat nga kayo eh. Magiging oversee nga kayo eh. So let me explain it to them during the hearings.

Then your second question was?

Host:

How are you sure that this will not, the PRDA won't be open to being compromised as well because there have been reports that PDEA have been compromised at one point as well. Go ahead.

VST:

Hindi. Hindi. Because the PNP will be on enforcement.

Nag-oversee lang sila. Pretty much like what's happening with the DEA in the United States. Ganoon yan.

And they've been successful in the United States Drug Control Policy Program. Ganoon din sa prosecution. They will be supervisory.

There will be a bureau na nakikipag-coordinate mabuti sa DOJ tungkol sa mga kaso na ito. Ganoon din sa DOH. Mayroon nakatutok sa authority na ito over the rehabilitation and much the same way sa prevention.

Under the office of the President who will be the head. Mas maganda nga ito kaysa sa DDB. DDB, I have been chairman. 17 ang members. Hirap na hirap sila... Ganoon, I dare them how many times did they meet in this past year, in the previous years.

It was only during my time. Once a month nagme-meeting. Ako yung DDB chairman.

All the rest, hindi naman umaatid yung mga members ng Dangerous Drugs Board. Nobody attends. That's why walang quorum lagi.

Hindi nila ako pwedeng debate diyan. They must read the bill first and see how it will be better for them. They will not do harm to the issue.

It will be very good for the country.

Host:

And speaking of the country, how will this not add another layer in the bureaucracy? Bakit hindi nalang mas paitingin, palakasin yung PDEA at yung DBB?

VST:

Yan ang hindi maganda. Lalo sasama yan, lalo lalayo sa police yan. Kaya ito nga, this is practically right-sizing the government.

This will not create a new body. You will merely merge them together and make them a better authority. They will have more power.

Pretty much like we did with DMW, Department of Migrant Workers. Before we passed that, I filed a law right-sizing the government. Kaya ayaw ko nang gawin yung, ayaw namin yung Department of Water, Department of Culture, Department of Disaster.

Pero yung Department of Migrant Workers, para hindi nga ma-bloat, pinagsama-sama natin yung OWWA, yung POEA, yung mga bureau under the Department of Foreign Affairs, ginawang isa nalang. Imbis na naka-kalat. Ganon din ang nangyayari dito.

Magiging supervisory sila on the entire country over the Philippine National Police, the DOJ, the DOH, and the DPED. Anong masama doon? Gumanda nga eh.

Thank you very much, Karmina. Thank you. Good afternoon.

Mabuhay. God bless.

Legal Disclaimer:

EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.

Share us

on your social networks:
AGPs

Get the latest news on this topic.

SIGN UP FOR FREE TODAY

No Thanks

By signing to this email alert, you
agree to our Terms & Conditions