A PETITION seeking clarification on issues surrounding the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte was filed yesterday before the Supreme Court by a high school teacher who is also seeking a House seat for the lone district of Las Pinas City.
At the heart of the petition for declaratory relief filed by John Barry Tayam is a plea to the magistrates to settle debates on the term “forthwith” in the 1987 Constitution regarding the impeachment process, whether the term means a swift or immediate action, or allows for delay.
Tayam named as respondents Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero, Senate majority leader Francis Tolentino, President Marcos Jr., and Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra.
Tayam asked the tribunal court to “provide clarity on the proper course of action in accordance with the Constitution and established legal principles that will uphold the constitutional rights and safeguard the rule of law.”
In an interview with reporters after filing the petition, Tayam said he is not pushing for the Vice President’s impeachment.
He said he is “pro-Constitution” because he is citizen of the Philippines. He added going to court is a “last option,” noting he has also written Escudero and Malacañang asking for clarification on the meaning of “forthwith” with regard to the impeachment process.
He said he wants the magistrates to once and for all clarify the word, since there are so many interpretations now, including that of Escudero and legal experts.
Tayam was referring to Section 3(4) of Article XI, which states that in case a 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.”
He said his call for clarity is also prompted by concerns over whether the impeachment process infringes on Duterte’ right to a speedy trial — a guarantee enshrined in Article III, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution
The House of Representatives transmitted the impeachment complaint against Duterte to the Senate on February 5, two hours before Congress went on recess.
Escudero has said the Senate could tackle the complaint only when Congress resumes session on June 2.
But he is facing pressure from various sectors, including House prosecutors and fellow senators, to immediately convene the body as an impeachment court and not wait for the resumption of session, based on the term “forthwith” which they said means immediately.
Last week, Escudero reiterated the trial should be done in accordance with laws and procedures to avoid “more delays.”
Before Tayam’s petition, a former counsel of the Presidential Commission on Good Government asked the SC to order the Senate to convene as an impeachment court and immediately proceed to trial.
Makabayan senatorial candidates yesterday disputed a quip attributed to Escudero that the impeachment trial of Duterte is “not special enough” to warrant a special session of Congress.
They were responding to Escudero’s statement during a press conference yesterday that under the Constitution, a special session should be called only to tackle urgent legislation, among others.
Party list Reps. France Castro (ACT Teacher) and Arlene Brosas (Gabriela), said Escudero’s opinion was legally unsound and serves to shield the Vice President from accountability.
“Impeachment is undoubtedly special as it is a constitutional process specifically designed to hold the highest officials of the land accountable for their actions,” Castro said.
She pointed out that the Constitution itself recognizes the exceptional nature of impeachment by limiting it to only a select few officials and requiring specific grounds to weigh whether or not an impeachable official is fit to remain in office.
They reiterated their stand that the President needs to convene a special session for the purpose of constituting an impeachment court, saying every day of delay benefits the Duterte camp and their ongoing efforts to evade accountability. – With Peter Tabingo
