RETIRED Chief Justice Reynato Puno yesterday questioned the involvement of the Supreme Court in the political process of impeachment, and warned the judiciary on its consequences.
In an interview with Bilyonaryo News Channel, he said the involvement of the high court in such a politically wrought issue is “very questionable” and “runs counter” to the 1987 Constitution.
In particular, Puno expressed concern over the high court’s controversial July 25 decision invalidating the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte, in which it imposed new due process requirements in impeachment proceedings conducted by the House of Representatives.
“With due respect to the Supreme Court, I would say that the interposition of judicial power in the political part of the process is very questionable, especially when the court wrote these seven conditions to guide the House in the conduct of the initiation process,” he said.
He added those conditions were nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
Puno insisted that the House impeachment proceeding is a political process and as such should be free from judicial intervention. He said the House has exclusive power when it comes to initiating the impeachment process.
“Exclusive means that the power cannot be shared. It’s that simple,” he said.
He explained that the legal part in the impeachment process is during trial by the Senate sitting as an impeachment court, which will decide whether to pronounce a guilty or not guilty verdict.
Puno maintained the SC cannot write the House’ rules on the impeachment process.
“The court should not enter the political thicket because if the court goes into the political thicket, it’s very dangerous. The creatures that will be met by the court there would be unknown and it will be exposed to terrible danger,” Puno said.
At the same time, he said the SC should have conducted oral arguments on the case, the same way it has done for other less pressing issues.
He said the impeachment case is a “transcendental” issue.
“The ruling affects the principal architecture, design of the Constitution: separation of powers, checks and balances, political issues. And normally, the court would have called for oral arguments on these cases of such a magnitude,” Puno said.
He said the Supreme Court could have avoided the public backlash generated by its controversial ruling if it heard the parties through oral arguments.
Questions about the decision, including on the accuracy of statements, continue to be raised and have even been cited in a motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives and two other similar motions, including the one filed by retired associate justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio-Morales and the 1Sambayan Coalition.
On Tuesday, the SC said its decision was immediately executory although its spokesperson Camille Sue Mae Ting said it does not preclude the filing of motions to reverse the ruling.
