EDITORIAL — Marcoleta’s vote

Senator Rodante Marcoleta, currently being detained for plunder for allegedly not declaring campaign donations, has asked the Senate impeachment court to consider his vote in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte Carpio.

Senate impeachment court presiding officer Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero said Senator Marcoleta formally wrote to him, requesting the court to include his vote in the impeachment trial.

“The presiding officer and Senate President (Sherwin Gatchalian) are in receipt of a letter of manifestation signed by Senator-judge Marcoleta, citing a rule in the Erap impeachment trial and wanting his vote to be considered,” Senator Escudero was quoted as saying in a GMA news report.

He added that he is inclined to allow this.

Well, we suppose Senator Marcoleta can still ask to vote, being a duly-elected senator of the republic and a senator-judge, but will he be able to render a ruling based on the impeachment trial proceedings?

There’s a big difference between being there in person, taking part in the proceedings, looking at the different evidence presented, asking questions, and engaging in debates as opposed to merely watching the trial via television or livestreaming --assuming Senator Marcoleta has access to either or both where he’s being incarcerated.

What Senator Marcoleta is asking for is like asking to still be allowed to choose the winner in a competition where he didn’t see how the contestants performed.

And while Senator Marcoleta mentions a precedent in the former president Erap Estrada impeachment trial that purportedly allowed a detained senator to vote, it’s also worth mentioning that in a more recent development, former senator Leila de Lima wasn’t allowed to function as senator while she was detained.

So what precedent will be followed here? Does the rule that applied to Senator De Lima not apply to Senator Marcoleta?

Of course, it’s not up to us to decide if Senator Marcoleta gets to vote despite not being able to participate in the proceedings or witness it firsthand. But it looks like a real desperate move on his part to be allowed to vote because he already has a verdict in mind, evidence be damned.