THE newly appointed spokesman of the House of Representatives’ prosecution panel in the impending impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte yesterday warned the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, against dismissing the case without trial, saying doing so will be a “betrayal of the Constitution.”
Antonio Audie Bucoy, a human rights lawyer, also reminded the Senate that along with the Vice President, the institution is also under trial in the eyes of the public which expects it to discharge its constitutional duty to try the case.
“Ito pong paglilitis na ito, hindi lang ang Pangalawang Pangulo ang nasasakdal. Nasasakdal din po rito ang institusyon ng Senado bilang isang impeachment court. Nasasakdal din ang buong sambayanan (In this trial, it’s not only the Vice President who is being tried. The Senate as an institution and as an impeachment court is also under trial. The whole country is under trial),” he told a press conference.
Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong, in a separate online press conference, agreed with Bucoy, saying it is not only the Vice President who is under scrutiny or under trial but “the Senate in itself is also under trial by the people.”
The Senate has been drawing heavy flak since last week for the decision of 18 of the 23 senators to remand the Articles of Impeachment to the House pending some issues that senators want congressmen to shed light on.
In response, the House deferred acceptance of the impeachment complaint following a decision of the prosecution panel to file a motion for clarification before the impeachment court.
Bucoy criticized the Senate’s handling of the impeachment proceedings, saying it would be an embarrassment to the revered statesmen like former senators Jose Diokno, Lorenzo Tañada, and Joker Arroyo.
“They will be ashamed. They will be embarrassed by what the current Senate is doing. We’re calling a spade a spade,” he said in Filipino, reacting to the Senate’s move to remand the Articles of Impeachment to the House of Representatives and entertaining Sen. Ronald dela Rosa’s attempt to raise a motion to dismiss when he is not a defense counsel but a judge.
DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
While the Senate did not in any way imply that the case will be dismissed, Bucoy reminded senator-judges that dismissing the complaint without a proper trial would not only violate the Constitution “but also set a dangerous and unprecedented standard that undermines the rule of law.”
“That’s not in the Constitution. That’s betrayal (of the Constitution),” he said in mixed Filipino and English, particularly citing Delas Rosa’s motion to dismiss attempt.
“It’s a bad precedent. It’s a terrible precedent because it goes against the Constitution,” he said.
He described Dela Rosa’s move as unconstitutional and out of order, saying judges cannot raise such motions because they are not parties to the case.
He said the grounds Dela Rosa cited were the same ones the Duterte camp brought up to the Supreme Court. “So what happened was Sen. Dela Rosa appeared to have acted as defense counsel,” he said.
Bucoy said the judges’ job is to decide on the case based on evidence, and not to dismiss it without trial. “That’s not in the Constitution. The Constitution provides for a trial, for a decision to be rendered,” he said.
Bucoy also said the Senate should to view the impeachment trial “not merely as (quasi-) legal proceeding, but as a national test of moral accountability.”
‘GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION’
Bucoy said the Senate impeachment court’s power is not without limits even in a sui generis (a class of its own) proceeding like the impeachment trial, echoing the opinion of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno that the Senate under the leadership of Senate President Francis Escudero may have committed grave abuse of discretion. He said Escudero’s actuations and rulings as presiding officer of the impeachment court are not in the Constitution.
Escudero earlier said he Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, has a free hand in deciding how it will discharge its functions.
Bucoy said remanding a complaint, which means that a lower court should reconsider its decision, is not in the impeachment provisions of the Constitution.
“Wala hong salitang remand sa impeachment. Hindi angkop ang remand sa impeachment. ‘Yung remand ay para sa ordinaryong kaso sa ordinaryong hukuman but never sa impeachment court (There’s no such words as remand in impeachment. It’s inappropriate in an impeachment. Remanding is for ordinary cases in ordinary courts but never in an impeachment court),” he said.
Outgoing Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III said returning the impeachment articles to the House has not only “caused unnecessary delays” in the impeachment process, but also introduced legal concepts that are not so clear/
Pimentel, minority leader, said the Senate could have just been “straightforward with the procedures” since there is always that presumption of regularity with what the House did in the impeachment complaint.
Under the 1987 Constitution, he said, it is the duty and responsibility of the House to initiate an impeachment, while the Senate is solely responsible for hearing and deciding on the complaint.
“The House filed the impeachment complaint, why are we now asking the House to certify that what you did was not unconstitutional,? Pimentel said in Filipino at the Kapihan sa Senado media forum.
Pimentel said the impeachment court should have stuck to Escudero’s original proposed timetable on the impeachment process.
He said the remand move “really caused unnecessary delay.”
“It introduced a maneuver, a detour … legal concepts whose meanings are not so clear,” he added.
SC INTERVENTION
Puno said the Supreme Court has the power to intervene in a Senate impeachment court’s decision even if the latter is the sole judge of impeachment complaints, if grave abuse of discretion is committed and if it violates the Constitution.
Speaking on radio DZMM radio, Puno, who is also the chairperson of the Philippine Constitution Association (PhilConsa), said arbitrary powers have no place in a democracy like the Philippines.
Puno made the statement when asked for his response to Escudero’s remarks on Monday that there were no limits as to what the impeachment can or cannot do.
Puno said he agrees that the Senate, as an impeachment court, should be given leeway to issue orders and resolutions since it has primary jurisdiction to try and hear impeachment cases.
But he said it should not be done arbitrarily as this could be questioned before the Supreme Court.
“That is why have the Constitution which sets limit on all actions of the government. We also have provision there, called grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction,” he said in Filipino.
“If there is grave abuse of discretion, if there is a violation of the Constitution, the remedy is to go the Supreme Court,” he added.
Asked if the Senate’s remand order could be considered grave abuse of discretion, Puno said that is the position of PhilConsa, law deans and various legal experts.
PhilConsa earlier said the Senate’s move raises serious constitutional concerns and challenges the integrity of the impeachment process.
It added that the decision to remand the impeachment case to the House could undermine the principle that public office is a public trust.
Asked if the SC could compel the Senate impeachment court to reconvene and proceed with a trial if it declared an order unconstitutional, Puno affirmed the High Court’s power to intervene.
However, he said that “whether they will intervene, if they intervene, at what stage of the process, that is another question.”
FOOT-DRAGGING
Reginald Tongol, spokesman for the impeachment court, said the Senate has done so much in the past week, contrary to critics’ claims that it is “dragging its feet.”
In a statement, Tongol said that since the impeachment court was convened before the 19th Congress adjourned sine die last week, it has adopted rules, issued a summons to the Vice President, ordered the House to clarify if it has not violated the one-year ban on accepting impeachment complaints, and received the entry of appearance of defense lawyers.
“Claims of foot dragging is baseless as actions speak louder than words. Any litigator worth his salt would know how easy and fast it is to file motions of clarifications, manifestations, compliance or even formal entry of appearance,” Tongol said.
With the impeachment court’s swift actions, he also said, the same should be for those who have been ordered by the court to comply with the requested pleading.
He added that critics should stop hitting the impeachment court.
“It is disrespectful for litigants to question the court with the end goal of merely discrediting it instead of doing their job to have their complaints ventilated in the proper forum. If they feel strongly about the actions of the Court then they should avail of their remedies in law and not air out grievances in the court of public opinion,” he said.
‘SARA’S PROPAGANDA’
Bucoy laughed off the Vice President’s allegation that lawmakers signed the impeachment complaint against her without reading it because they did it in budget allocations, calling it “propaganda.”
He said House members who signed the complaint are fully aware of the implications of their action when they took their oath in endorsing the Articles of Impeachment.
“First of all, those who signed the Articles of Impeachment are lawmakers. They will not sign without understanding what they are signing,” he said. “When it’s under oath, that is under pain of perjury. They will unlikely put themselves in such a situation. So I think it’s just propaganda,” he said.
Bucoy also slammed Dela Rosa for allegedly “propagating a lie” when he shared a video produced through the use of artificial intelligence (AI), which shows support for Duterte in the face of her impending trial.
Dela Rosa and Davao City Mayor Sebastian Duterte, the Vice President’s younger brother, have been drawing heavy flak for sharing an AI-produced video which shows young Filipinos opposing her impeachment trial.
“That’s why there’s a bill against fake news. There’s a group Movement Against Disinformation. It’s target, among others is the fake productions such as AI videos,” Bucoy said.
NO DIALOGUE
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is not open to any dialogue in connection with the impeachment.
Palace Press Officer Claire Castro made the statement after Escudero there is no need for the Palace to step in to help resolve issues on the impeachment trial.
Castro said the President can only intervene if issues related to bills “but not with regard to the impeachment issues.”
Malacañang has repeatedly said that the President is not intervening or getting involved in the impeachment against Duterte.
Pimentel said this is a welcome development because the president has no role in the impeachment process.
“The President should be hands off in the impeachment process because the President is impeachable, he can be the subject of impeachment … Let’s keep it that way, even if he makes comments, it should not carry any weight,” he said at the forum. – With Raymond Africa, Ashzel Hachero and Jocelyn Reyes
