Marcos nominates new envoys to Commission on Appointments
In a press statement, Pimentel said the President had issued the nominations last June 2, and ''all were formally received by the Commission on the same day.''
Pimentel said the nominees are as follows:
Evangeline Ong Jimenez-Ducrocq - Philippine Permanent Representative to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Jakarta, Indonesia;
Bernadette Therese Fernandez - Ambassador to South Korea;
Maria Teresa Almojuela - Ambassador to Germany;
Alan Deniega - Ambassador to Poland, with concurrent jurisdiction over Lithuania and Ukraine;
Gines Jaime Ricardo Gallaga - Ambassador to Bahrain;
Marlowe Miranda - Ambassador to Lebanon; and
Arvin De Leon - Ambassador to Mexico, with concurrent jurisdiction over the Caribbean nations of Cuba and the Dominican Republic, as well as the Central American countries of Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama
Pimentel pointed out that unlike ad interim appointments – which take effect immediately pending CA confirmation – nominees cannot assume their posts until they have secured the Commission's consent.
The lawmaker added that both the assignment of ambassadors and the promotion in rank of senior foreign service officers require CA approval.
The 1987 Constitution states that the 25-member CA is mandated to assess the competence, integrity, and fitness of key presidential appointees, with the authority to either confirm or reject them.
"Confirmation hearings serve as an important safeguard, ensuring proper oversight of the President's power to appoint officials to critical diplomatic posts," Pimentel said.
The CA is composed of 12 members each from the House of Representatives and the Senate, with the Senate President serving as its ex-officio presiding officer. — Anna Felicia Bajo/RSJ, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
44 minutes ago
- GMA Network
Proceed with VP Sara trial despite SC decision? Senators weigh in
Several senators on Saturday expressed their views on whether or not to proceed with the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte following the Supreme Court's decision declaring the Articles of Impeachment against her as unconstitutional. In a message to reporters, Senator Juan Miguel "Migz" Zubiri warned that the Senate may be held in contempt should it proceed with the trial. "We may be courting a contempt order from the Supreme Court and a possible constitutional crisis, not to mention a dangerous precedent, should we proceed with the impeachment trial in defiance of a unanimous en banc ruling of the High Court," Zubiri said. "Ignoring the SC decision is tantamount to eroding the very principle of 'judicial review' established in Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936), and in turn, endangers the delicate system of checks and balances that is foundational to our democracy. Whether we agree with the decision or not, the Supreme Court remains as the final arbiter of constitutional issues—lest we destabilize the very framework of government," Zubiri said. "Respect and honor the Supreme Court of the Republic. PERIOD," Zubiri added. Interviewed on Saturday morning, Senator Risa Hontiveros noted that more than a few of her colleagues in the Senate were dismayed with the Supreme Court ruling. Asked if there was still a chance for the impeachment trial to proceed this year, Hontiveros said, "Laging may pag-asa (There's always hope)." "Well, abangan natin. Nababalitaan ko may mga nagco-consider mag-file ng motion for reconsideration. May mga wise na mga column at sulat na inilalabas, payo, kung paano puwede pa ring sa diwa ng pagrespeto sa Korte Suprema, pero puwede pa ring salbahin yung proseso ng impeachment," Hontiveros said. (Well, let's see. I hear that there are those who are considering to file a motion for reconsideration. Wise columns and letters, advice, have come out, on respecting the Supreme Court while saving the impeachment process.) The high tribunal ruled unanimously, deeming that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte is barred by the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution. Moreover, magistrates ruled that the articles violate the right to due process. The Supreme Court also said the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. Upcoming discussion Senator Erwin Tulfo, for his part, said that while he respects the high court's decision, the Constitution gives the upper chamber the sole authority to try and decide on all impeachment cases. "I respect the ruling of the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the constitutional limits that guide the impeachment process. Nonetheless, the Constitution is clear: the Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment," Tulfo said. "If given the opportunity, I am prepared to discharge our solemn duty and allow the evidence to speak for itself… I will act with my fellow Senators in upholding our constitutional mandate with integrity and fairness," Tulfo said. Tulfo said senators will have a discussion on Monday, July 28, if the chamber will oblige with or ignore the SC's ruling. Call to proceed Following the announcement of the SC decision on Friday afternoon, Senator Bam Aquino had maintained that the impeachment trial should proceed as he called on fellow senators to immediately hold a caucus to discuss the decision, which he said "ignored" the Senate's constitutional duty. However, Senator Ping Lacson, in a post on X, said the Senate must respect and comply with the SC's ruling, "notwithstanding the contrary opinions of several legal observers, particularly on the Court's interpretation of Art XI Section 3, paragraph (4) - that the filing of a verified complaint by at least 1/3 of all the members of the House of Representatives shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed." Interviewed on Super Radyo dzBB on Saturday, constitutional law expert Atty. Domingo "Egon" Cayosa said the Senate may opt to proceed with Duterte's trial despite the SC's decision should the legislature assert its "exclusive power" with regard to impeachment matters. Article XI Section 3(4) of the 1987 Constitution states that: "In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed." Constitutional duty Senator Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan, likewise, said that should the Senate proceed with the trial, a constitutional crisis may still be avoided. "I believe a way out of this impasse can be found in the opinion of former Justice [Adolf] Azcuna on the doctrine of operative facts wherein a Motion for Reconsideration is filed by the House of Representatives citing the operative facts doctrine as basis." "The Supreme Court may then reconsider its ruling and if so, the Constitutional duty for the Senate to forthwith proceed with trial can be observed and respected. In doing so, several provisions of the Constitution namely the Supreme Court's power of judicial review, the HoR (House of Represenatives) power to initiate impeachment complaints and Senate's power to try and decide Impeachment cases are harmonised and all three are given validity and legal effect as it ought to. It is a well established rule in constitutional construction that one provision of the Constitution should not be allowed to defeat another (Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary)," Pangilinan said. To recall, when the Senate impeachment court first convened on June 10, Senator Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa made a motion in the Senate plenary seeking that the verified impeachment complaint against Duterte be dismissed. Senator Alan Peter Cayetano later that day moved to amend Dela Rosa's motion to instead have the Articles of Impeachment returned to the House of Representatives without dismissing or terminating the case. The House of Representatives impeached Duterte on February 5, with over 200 lawmakers endorsing the complaint. The Vice President was accused of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes. Duterte, meanwhile, entered a "not guilty" plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her, which she called merely a "scrap of paper." — VDV, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
3 hours ago
- GMA Network
Senate may proceed with VP Sara impeach trial despite SC ruling — expert
Constitutional law expert Atty. Domingo "Egon" Cayosa said Saturday the Senate may opt to proceed with the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte even though the Supreme Court ruled that the Articles of Impeachment against her violated the Constitution. Cayosa, a former president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), said the legislative may assert its "exclusive power" with regard to impeachment matters. What remains to be seen, Cayosa said, is the senators' actions and if they have the numbers to set the trial in motion. "It is now for the legislative branch of government to defer to that ruling, o kaya if they have political will and numbers, maaari nilang ituloy. Sapagkat malinaw naman sa Konstitusyon, pagdating sa impeachment, that is the sole power of the legislative branch," Cayosa said. (It is now for the legislative branch of government to defer to that ruling, or if they have the political will and numbers, they can proceed with the impeachment trial. The Constitution is clear that when it comes to impeachment, that is the sole power of the legislative branch.) Voting 13-0, the Supreme Court deemed that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte are barred by the one-year rule. The high court also found that the articles violated the right to due process. The SC decision is immediately executory but a motion for reconsideration may be filed. Asked if the Senate and House of Representatives can opt not to comply with the SC ruling, Cayosa said: "Puwede kung igigiit nila 'yung kanilang exclusive power sa proseso ng impeachment. Of course, 'yung iba, sinasabi mag-defer na lang diyan sa Supreme Court. But malinaw ho kasi ang Constitution pagdating sa impeachment, it is for the Senate to decide, 'yan ang impeachment court." (They can do that if they assert their exclusive power with regard to the impeachment process. Of course, others suggest to defer to the Supreme Court. But the Constitution is clear that when it comes to impeachment, it is for the Senate to decide, and that is the Senate impeachment court.) "Insofar as some people think there is judicial overreach, eh maaari naman yang i-disregard ng Senado at ituloy (Insofar as some people think there is judicial overreach, the Senate can disregard the decision and proceed with the trial)," Cayosa said. The former IBP president said the Supreme Court itself recognizes that the Senate impeachment court is sui generis, meaning it operates uniquely and independently on its own. "They have all the leeway. So maaari ho nilang gawin iyon, at maiintindihan natin. (So we understand that they can proceed with that.) But that all depends if they have the political will or the numbers to proceed with the impeachment trial," Cayosa said. Following the announcement of the SC decision on Friday afternoon, senators aired contrasting views on the matter. With regard to proceeding with the trial despite the SC decision, Senator Bam Aquino said the impeachment trial should proceed as he called on fellow senators to immediately hold a caucus to discuss the decision, which he said "ignored" the Senate's constitutional duty. Senator Vicente "Tito" Sotto III, for his part, said that he is still studying the SC decision and is seeking advice on the matter. "Being a member of the impeachment court, I would rather hear what the [House of Representatives] has to say. I was just told by a legal luminary that in this situation, we can disregard the SC decision. Let me study that advice," Sotto said. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
14 hours ago
- GMA Network
House used ‘highly immoral maneuver' in VP Sara impeachment
Supreme Court Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando said the House of Representatives took ''deliberate'' actions to circumvent the one-year bar rule in relation to the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte. Hernando was one of the 13 justices who voted on Friday to strike down the impeachment complaint pending before the Senate, ruling that it violated the constitutional protection against multiple impeachment proceedings against the same official in a single year. According to the SC, the effective termination of the three impeachment complaints following the adjournment of session barred the fourth impeachment complaint, which was endorsed by more than 200 congressmen on February 5. ''[T]he House abused its discretion when it tolerated and approved the Secretary General's act of withholding action on the first three impeachment complaints,'' Hernando said in his concurring opinion. ''The totality of attendant circumstances reveals the true nature of the House's action: to circumvent the one-year bar rule in order to fabricate a superficially legal strategy and make the fourth complaint viable. The move was as clever as it was iniquitous and a prime example of a technically legal but highly immoral maneuver—a mere subterfuge for political gain, for it exploited a weak point in our democratic institutions,'' he added. He said the House Secretary General's argument that the one-year bar rule did not apply since the first three complaints were never referred to the House Committee on Justice was ''an excuse so lame and convenient that it is extremely difficult to ignore the impunity that comes with it.'' However, ''one may take the unpopular perspective that the House of Representatives' seeming inaction on the first three impeachment complaints served as a mantle of protection to VP Duterte and saved her from the burden of having to answer all allegations against her all at once,'' said Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda. Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, for his part, said that Duterte was not given due process in the course of the impeachment proceedings in the House. ''Here, as admitted by the House in their compliance before the Court, VP Sara was not given the opportunity to be heard in relation to the fourth Articles of Impeachment transmitted to the Senate. The House posits that neither the Constitution nor the House Rules imposes any requirement of prior opportunity to be heard,'' Gaerlan said in his concurring opinion. ''[T]he fundamental right to due process applies in all proceedings. Impeachment is not an exception,'' he added. ''[D]ue to the House's violation of VP Sara's right to due process, the fourth Articles of Impeachment is null and void.'' Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez said that while the Constitution allows the direct filing of an impeachment complaint upon the endorsement of at least one-third of all House members, ''this expedited process must not come at the expense of the respondent public official's constitutional rights.'' Both Hernando and Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting opined that the Senate of the 20th Congress, which opens on July 28, could no longer act on the impeachment complaint. Inting said the Articles of Impeachment that were transmitted by the 19th Congress were 'terminated and rendered inefficacious with the expiration of the term of the 19th Congress on June 30, 2025.'' ''I]f the Senate of the 20th Congress is allowed to continue with the trial on the subject impeachment complaint, it would have to proceed based on the Articles of Impeachment by the House that no longer exists,'' he said. ''Such a situation is tantamount to the creation of an irrepealable statute, which is constitutionally impermissible.'' Hernando said the newly elected Congress could not be bound by the actions of the previous Congress. ''The fourth impeachment complaint already transmitted and pending before the Senate of the 19th Congress, as the Senate had already convened as an impeachment court, is likewise terminated by reason of the expiration of the term of the 19th Congress,'' he said. Duterte was accused of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes. The charges included allegations of misusing confidential funds and threatening to have Speaker Martin Romualdez, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. assassinated if she was killed. The Vice President has denied the allegations. The SC said that it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges, and an impeachment complaint can still be filed starting February 6, 2026. —VBL, GMA Integrated News
