(First of two parts)
OKAY. Let’s talk about impeachment, more precisely, the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte.
But first, make no mistake about it. Impeachment is a political act and a political process. To say it is not—or should not be—is not only hypocrisy but ignorance of our government’s basic setup and the systems laid down by the 1987 Constitution.
It is an act exclusively exercised by Congress, which consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Congress is a political branch of our trifurcated system of government.
The Judicial Branch—which is for judicial matters—is separate, and while in impeachment proceedings, the Senate sits as the “impeachment court,” the process is not judicial. It may borrow some rules of judicial procedure, but that doesn’t make the Senate—conducting an impeachment trial—a judicial body. It remains a political body made up of elected senators. And its decision is bound to be more political than judicial.
Similarly, the House, acting as prosecutor, remains a political body composed of representatives elected by the people.
Impeachment is a special political tool created under the Constitution for removing erring high government officials who can’t be removed by administrative or other means.
That the framers of the Constitution vested this power in Congress meant that they intended it to be a political tool and process—nothing more, nothing less.
The Supreme Court, no less, recognized the political character of impeachment when it noted—in its ruling on the impeachment case against then Chief Justice Hilario Davide in 2003—that the “determination of what constitutes an impeachable offense … is a purely political question (emphasis mine) which the Constitution has left to the sound discretion of the legislation,” an intent “clear from the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission.”
But being a political tool and process doesn’t mean it can be done at whim. There are rules and procedures to follow to make it constitutional, legal, and binding.
Article XI of the Constitution lists the officials who may be removed by impeachment: the President, Vice President, Members of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman.
These officials may be impeached for culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.
If convicted of any of the charges, they are removed from office. No other penalty is imposed, but they may be prosecuted subsequently in an appropriate court of law.
In our history, only one has been convicted in an impeachment trial—former Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Former President Joseph Estrada’s trial was cut short by the EDSA II People Power Revolution that removed him from office. It made his trial moot.
Former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez resigned before her trial could begin.
This brings us to VP Duterte.
The impeachment case against the Vice President took the route as that of former President Estrada.
The complaint/resolution reportedly bore the signatures of 215 House members, more than the one-third required to immediately send it to the Senate.
But the Vice President is questioning its constitutionality before the Supreme Court on the ground that the House violated the Constitution and the House rules on impeachment when it tabled the three earlier complaints to give way to the fourth complaint/resolution, which bypassed the committee on justice by having the required number of signatures that automatically turned it into the articles of impeachment.
I will not dwell on the merits of this case and leave it to the SC. Let me just emphasize that the case does not involve the merits of the case. The only question before the High Court is whether or not the House acted with “grave abuse of discretion” when it did not act on the first three impeachment complaints and waited for the fourth complaint.
It’s a matter of application of the rules on impeachment, and although the SC has recognized that the House and the Senate possess the power to make their own rules—such rules (like any law passed by Congress) must pass the test of constitutionality, and any act by Congress violating its own rules may also be questioned before the SC if it amounts to “grave abuse of discretion,” which a ground for judicial review.
(To be continued next week.)
