WITH the elections over and the winning 12 senators proclaimed, speculations already fill the air as to how the composition of the incoming Senate shall vote on the impeachment case of the Vice President.
Let’s not go into that yet because the Senate Rules on Impeachment call upon all senators to “observe political neutrality” during the trial, political neutrality meaning “exercise of public official’s duty without unfair discrimination and regardless of party affiliation or preference.”
So, although we know that political neutrality in the Senate is next to impossible, let’s pretend that the 24 senators may actually exercise political neutrality and not just pretend to do so.
For now, let’s zero in on whether the trial can proceed or not. Many, including lawyers Romy Macalintal and Raul Lambino, have expressed the view that the impeachment case is dead. They cite Section 123 of the Senate Rules which states in part: “All pending matters and proceedings shall terminate upon the expiration of one Congress, but may be taken by the succeeding Congress as if presented for the first time.”
They argue that having been initiated in the 19th Congress, the impeachment can no longer be taken up in the incoming 20th Congress. They treat the impeachment just like any piece of proposed legislation that when not passed before Congress adjourns sine die will have to be refiled and taken up as if presented for the first time. And since no two impeachment cases may be initiated against the same official within one year, then the present impeachment can’t be reinitiated.
Not necessarily.
Because that’s not the only rule we have to look at, and it may not even apply. What was it that we were taught when we were kids? For every rule there is an exception. This is one of those instances. Besides, there are other rules that apply to impeachment.
You see, the Senate has many faces: one as a lawmaking body, one as an investigative body exercising oversight powers, one as an appointing authority as part of the Commission on Appointments, and another as an impeachment court.
The rule that Macalintal and Lambino cite is part of the general rules of the Senate primarily as a legislative body. The Senate has “special rules” that apply in the performance of its other functions. There’s a separate set of rules for the conduct of investigation in aid of legislation, another set for the Commission on Appointments, and another for the conduct of impeachment—Resolution No. 39.
But as I pointed out in my previous piece, the Senate impeachment rules are silent on whether or not it survives the sine die adjournment of Congress and may be taken up by the succeeding Congress.
This is unlike in the United States Congress where the rules clearly say so.
The closest rule I can find is a portion of Section XI, which says in part: “The adjournment of the Senate sitting in (impeachment) trial shall not operate as an adjournment of the Senate as a legislative body.”
This is still vague, but it could be interpreted to also mean that “the adjournment of the Senate as a legislative body shall not operate as an adjournment of the Senate as an impeachment court.”
Because it is clear that the intent is to distinguish the Senate as an impeachment court from the Senate as a legislative body.
Still, it may be contested.
But there is a catch-all section in the General Rules of the Senate that may apply.
Section 135 (Supplementary Rules) states: “If there is no Rule applicable to a specific case, the precedents of the Legislative Department of the Philippines shall be resorted to, and as supplement to these, the Rules contained in Jefferson’s Manual, Riddick’s Precedents and Practices, and Hinds Precedents.”
Let’s just tackle one—Hinds Precedents, a compendium of debates, discussions, rulings, votes, decisions related to the powers and functions of the US House and Senate, including impeachment. Hinds Precedents were first published while we were still fighting for independence from Spain, and evolved over time.
And since our system of government is largely patterned after that of the US, all three branches of our government to this day continue to use US precedents and jurisprudence when our rules do not suffice.
As in this case, where the Senate saw it fit to adopt as part of its Rules the entire Hinds Precedents, including its rules on impeachment. And what does Hinds Precedents say?
First, an impeachment may proceed only when Congress is in session.
Second, an impeachment proceeding does not die with adjournment. An impeachment begun in the House in one Congress may be resumed by the House in the next Congress.
Third, an official impeached by the House in one Congress may be tried by the Senate in the next.
The next question is, do the current Senate Rules apply to the incoming Senate?
But of course. First, the Senate, the Supreme Court no less has decided, is a continuing body, meaning while its composition changes every three years because of election, it remains. Therefore, its rules are continuing.
Also, Section 37 clearly states that they “shall remain in force until they are amended or repealed.”
What could stop the trial? One, the pending case before the SC. Two, a withdrawal of the articles of impeachment by the House, just like a withdrawal by a prosecutor of a case before the court.
