A host of procedural and legal issues can be raised in the way the Senate handled last week the impeachment case against the Vice President, which could put the entire process in question.
Let us remember that the Senate, as the Impeachment Court, is distinct from the Senate as a legislative body.
Now, let us recall how the entire process went.
During its legislative session on June 9 (Monday) Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III moved to suspend the Senate’s legislative business, convene the Senate as impeachment court, have the Senate President take his oath as presiding officer and then administer the oath to all senators, call the impeachment case and schedule the reading and presentation of the articles of impeachment on June 10.
Sen. Riza Hontiveros seconded the motion. No objection was made by any senator, although some inquiries and clarifications were made.
Were the Senate to follow its rules (including rules of parliamentary procedure), SP Francis Escudero should have asked for any objections to the motion. Had there been an objection, then the motion would have been subjected to debate and a vote.
Since no objection was made, Escudero should have declared the motion approved.
But that didn’t happen and a long discussion ensued.
Sen. Francis Tolentino asked for a reinstatement of the motion because there were multiple motions.
But Sen. Joel Villanueva rose to manifest that the articles of impeachment have not been properly referred to the body.
Responding to Tolentino, Pimentel restated his motion, limiting it to the convening of the Senate as an impeachment court.
More discussions followed, with neither an objection nor a ruling on the original motion or the amended motion.
Sen. Allan Cayetano later asked who would address the constitutionality of the impeachment (an issue he said he heard from the defense)—whether the Senate as a legislative body or as an impeachment court.
It would have been appropriate for a senator (should have been Pimentel) to point out that determining the constitutionality of an act by the House of Representatives falls within the exclusive domain of the Supreme Court and that there is already a pending case and therefore it is out of the jurisdiction of the Senate.
Twice the session was suspended and when the senators returned, Villanueva moved to amend Pimentel’s motion (as agreed upon during consultation among the senators, he said) by moving to have the articles referred to the committee on rules and for Escudero to take his oath as presiding officer of the impeachment court.
Without objections, the motions were approved.
On Tuesday (June 10), the Senate convened again as a legislative body and one of the items on the agenda was the pending motion to convene as an impeachment court. But before it could happen, Sen. Ronald Dela Rosa delivered a privilege speech and then moved to dismiss the articles of impeachment.
Because the motion was made during a legislative session, Escudero suspended the session so that the senators could take their oath as judges.
The Impeachment Court was then convened, and Escudero asked Dela Rosa to restate his motion. It was necessary so that it could be taken up by the Senate as an Impeachment Court, not as a legislative body. The debate and voting followed.
But here the questions lie:
At this point, the articles of impeachment have not been referred to the Impeachment Court and entered into its records. Remember that the day before, the Senate, as a legislative body, referred the articles to the committee on rules, not to the Impeachment Court.
No senator had moved to have the articles entered into the record of the Impeachment Court. They just proceeded to debate and voted to “remand” the articles to the House.
But how can the Impeachment Court remand a matter that has not been entered into its records; the Impeachment Court has not even taken cognizance of its existence, ergo, it has not acquired jurisdiction of the case?
In the Corona case, the Senate, as a legislative body in session, officially acknowledged receipt of the articles from the House and then, if I recall right, Sen. Vicente Sotto III moved to refer the articles to the Impeachment Court. Then the Senate convened as an Impeachment Court. Since the previous session of the Senate as a legislative body directly referred the articles to the Impeachment Court—not the committee on rules—then the Impeachment Court acquired full jurisdiction, more so after the articles were presented by the prosecutors.
If we liken it to Supreme Court proceedings, the VP’s case was still with the clerk of court (the equivalent of the Senate committee on rules), and has not been referred to any division or the court en banc, hence no action can yet be taken.
Because of the procedural flaw, the Senate, as the Impeachment Court, cannot legally remand the articles to the House.
The Senate cannot put the cart before the horse. But it did. And if rules are to be taken seriously, then no remanding happened.
But then, maybe, just maybe, the senators intended to throw the entire case into legal confusion and oblivion. And maybe, that’s what Sen. Pimentel referred to in his valedictory address as “naisahan ang minority.”
