THE House of Representatives yesterday deferred the acceptance of the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte, following a decision of the prosecution panel to file a motion for clarification before the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.
The House also approved House Resolution No. 2346 certifying that the impeachment proceedings initiated against Duterte fully complied with Article XI, Sec. 3 of the Constitution.
Earlier yesterday, the 11-man prosecution panel in the impending impeachment trial of Duterte decided to defer action on the order of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, to remand the Articles of Impeachment to the House, as it seeks clarification on some issues.
Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro said the prosecution panel intends to file as soon as possible a motion for clarification of the impeachment court’s order for the House to issue a certification that the filing of the complaint was “not constitutionally infirm” and did not violate the constitutional one-year ban on the filing of more than one impeachment complaint.
“Nalalabuan kami sa naging order ng impeachment court (We’re confused by the order of the impeachment court,” Luistro told a joint press conference with other members of the prosecution panel led by minority leader Marcelino Libanan.
Senate President Francis Escudero said the House has no choice but to comply with the impeachment court’s order because the Senate and the House are not co-equal bodies when it come to the impeachment process.
“When it comes to the impeachment process, the Senate is the court, and the House is the prosecutor. The House cannot disobey the court’s order which is directed at prosecutors,” he said in Filipino.
Luistro said that while the prosecution panel is elated that the court has assumed jurisdiction with the serving of a summons requiring Duterte to answer the allegations against her, the panel has to be clarified as to why the court still needs a certification from the House when it has already done its constitutional duty of initiating an impeachment complaint.
“With respect to the first order, about the certification pertaining to our compliance with the Constitution in filing the impeachment complaint, we maintain our position, we followed fully and strictly the requirements of the Constitution. We did not violate the one-year prohibition rule,” she said.
The Office of the Vice President, in a statement, confirmed receipt of the summons at 11:05 a.m. yesterday.
The prosecution maintained that the constitutional one-year ban was not violated even if four impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte as only the fourth one, which was endorsed by 215 congressmen on February 5, was transmitted to the Senate while the rest were archived.
Luistro cited former Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile’s comments in the 2012 impeachment trial of the late former Chief Justice Renato Corona that there is presumption of regularity once the constitutional requirement of one-third signatories is met and the signatures of endorsers are verified.
Second, Luistro said, the impeachment court needs to clarify its order asking the House if it still wants to proceed with the trial in the incoming 20th Congress, as the 19th Congress will end on June 30.
“It’s impossible to comply because the 20th Congress has not been convened yet,” she said. “This will be part of the clarification we’ll be seeking.”
Luistro said the House’s move should not be seen as “disobedience” to the court, stressing that the House will eventually comply with the order once the Senate issues the clarification.
“We’re not defying the order. We’re simply deferring the receipt until we seek clarification (from the court),” she said. “If the clarification is in accordance with the Constitution, we’ll certainly be bound to follow the orders of the impeachment court.”
Libanan said the House needs to be clarified because it is the first time the Senate has remanded an impeachment complaint to the House which, he said, only performed its constitutional duty. He also cited the legal principle of presumption of regularity, stressing 215 lawmakers endorsed the impeachment articles.
IMPEACHMENT `ALIVE’
Libanan acknowledged that the House and the Senate have different roles in the impeachment process, “so if there’s someone to bend, we’ll do what needs to be done as long as we are not compromised.”
What is important now, he said, is that the impeachment trial “remains alive since the Vice President has now been given 10 days to answer the complaint.”
Escudero said the sending of the summons only proves that the impeachment complaint is very much alive, contrary to what senator-judges Aquilino Pimentel III and Risa Hontiveros said that the remand would mean the dismissal of the complaint.
In his manifestation before the impeachment court adjourned on Tuesday night, Escudero said the issuance of the summons “made it clear that there is no such intention and that there is every intention by this impeachment court to comply with the rules in so far as the issuance of the summons under our Rules and during the 19th Congress.”
Prosecution panel member Manila Rep. Joel Chua called the Senate’s remand move “unconstitutional,” saying it seems to be “meant to block democracy.”
He said the Constitution clearly states that “the Senate should proceed forthwith,” meaning move forward, not back down.
“What they did was to return the complaint, meaning it was moved back, that’s clearly a violation of the Constitution,” he said.
Chua also said the prosecution team will reserve the right to seek legal remedies in the Supreme Court if there will be a need for it.
San Juan City Rep. Ysabel Maria “Bel” Zamora, also a House prosecutor, said the Senate sitting as an impeachment court, has no power to remand the complaint.
Incoming Rep. Leila de Lima (PL, ML), who will be part of the prosecution team in the 20th Congress, warned senators that the public will not remain silent about their “cowardice.”
“You had one job: to let the truth be heard. Instead, you chose silence dressed as procedure. Delay disguised as order. Cowardice in the costume of rules. Pero tandaan niyo ito: Hindi kami tatahimik at hindi lahat ng dinadaan sa teknikalidad ay nakakalimutan (But remember: We’re not going to be silent and not all machinations under the guise of technicalities are forgotten),” she said.
Incoming Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno, who will also be a member of the prosecution panel, said it was questionable for senator-judges to raise motions in the impeachment court that would be benefit the accused.
In court, he said, motions are filed by either the prosecution or the defense. “So, that’s one thing we see that violates not only of the Constitution but also of the rules they approved,” he said in Filipino.
PRESENTATION
Escudero said the latest developments compelled him to cancel the scheduled formal presentation of House prosecutors of the impeachment articles before the Senate plenary.
The formal presentation would have triggered the convening of the impeachment court, but the minority bloc formally moved to formally open the impeachment process on Monday night, with Escudero taking his oath as the court’s presiding officer.
The rest of the 22 senators took their oath as impeachment court judges on Tuesday night.
Escudero adjourned the impeachment court late Tuesday and said that the schedule of the impeachment processes will still have to made and with the presence of both the defense and prosecution.
Escudero defended the remand move, saying Senate rules do not bar them from making the remand motion and putting it to a vote to settle the issue.
Escudero said anyone who thinks that what the impeachment court did on Tuesday night was unconstitutional can bring the matter to the Supreme Court.
Hontiveros said returning the complaints would “kill” the complaint.
Escudero also appointed lawyer Reginald Tongol as spokesman of the impeachment court effective immediately. He said Tongol’s role will be “crucial” to ensuring that all information about the impeachment trial is communicated accurately, responsibly, and in a timely manner ‘that fosters public trust.”
Tongol has been in the legal and media practice for almost two decades. He also served as a communications executive with a cabinet rank in Malacañang.
‘ALLOWABLE PROCEDURE’
Adolf Azcuna, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, said he finds the remand move “novel and unprecedented” as this will ensure the continuation of the trial until the incoming 20th Congress.
He also said the Duterte impeachment case is the first as the trial will be caught between two Congresses.
“I therefore find the novel and unprecedented step as an adoption of a unique but allowable procedure to insure a proper cross over of the same Articles of Impeachment from the 19th Congress to the 20th Congress,” Azcuna said in a Facebook post.
“The all important element is that the impeachment court has acquired jurisdiction over the case and is still on course to proceed to trial and decision without due delay after the cross over,” he added.
Former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay, also on Facebook, said, “Impeachment is a political process, and this step taken by the Senate, though novel, fits the nature of that process. Ultimately, all remedies are political and could very well be in the direct hands of the people themselves.”
MOTION
A group of Davao City lawyers led by Israelito Torreon asked the Supreme Court to stop the Senate from proceeding with the impeachment trial.
In a supplemental motion, Torreon’s group said it is an “unconstitutional and procedurally defective trial.”
Joining Torreon are former Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board chairperson Martin Delgra III, James Reserva and Hillary Olga Reserva.
Torreon is also serving as legal counsel of detained pastor Apollo Quiboloy who is facing a string of sexual abuse cases before the Pasig and Quezon City courts.
Delgra is one of the lawyers of former president Rodrigo Duterte.
Hillary Olga Reserva previously served as a lawyer of Jey Rence Quilario, leader of the alleged cult Socorro Bayanihan Services Inc.
In their supplemental motion, the petitioners raised three key constitutional violations that the Senate would violate if they proceed with the trial, namely, the lack of formal jurisdiction of the Senate after the 19th Congress ends on June 30, the impossibility of conducting a full and fair trial within the few remaining session days, and the failure of the fourth impeachment complaint to comply with constitutional and procedural requirements, including valid verification by its signatories.
“The Senate’s compressed schedule-proposing to end the trial in 19 days-violates fundamental principles of due process. Impeachment is not a political shortcut, it is a constitutional mechanism that demands fairness, adherence to rules, and judicial accountability,” they said. – With Ashzel Hachero
