SC asked to stop trial over rules, choice of Chiz

MANILA, Philippines — A group of lawyers asked the Supreme Court yesterday to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) and stop the impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte until questions on the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials and Sen. Francis Escudero’s election as presiding officer are resolved.

“This is not a hypothetical or speculative concern. The trial proper has already commenced under the disputed leadership. The longer this uncertainty is allowed to persist and the further the proceedings advance, the greater the risk that the entire impeachment trial may later be declared void for lack of a validly constituted and validly presided tribunal – with all the attendant waste of public resources to all parties concerned, petitioner Vice President foremost among them,” the lawyers, led by Israelito Torreon, argued.

The group on Monday filed a 21-page Very Urgent Manifestation with Motion before the SC and asked the High Court to enjoin the impeachment court and its officers, agents, representatives from conducting or continuing the trial proper, receiving evidence, ruling on objections, issuing orders, enforcing processes or otherwise giving further operative effect to the impeachment trial of Duterte until the antecedent constitutional question concerning the authority of the presiding officer is resolved.

“Petitioners thus respectfully submit that a temporary restraining order, status quo ante order or other appropriate interim relief is warranted to ensure that the impeachment trial proceeds, if at all, only under Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials validly adopted and only under a presiding officer whose authority to preside is not under an unresolved constitutional challenge,” they said.

The petitioners also clarified that the filing of the manifestation with motion was not intended as a plea for political preference to favor the Vice President but a plea for constitutional restraint.

“Petitioners do not ask this Honorable Court to determine the guilt or innocence of petitioner Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, to weigh the evidence or to decide whether she should be removed from office. Petitioners ask only that the impeachment trial, if it is to proceed at all, proceed before a constitutionally constituted tribunal and under a presiding officer whose authority is not void, doubtful or still unresolved in a pending constitutional case,” they said.

On June 3, the Senate amended Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials that provided for the election of a presiding officer in cases not involving the President.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano pointed out that this was procedurally infirm because there was no quorum with only 12 out of the 24 senators recorded present; the amendment was not preceded by the one-day advance notice required under the Rules of the Senate and that the impeachment court already adopted its own Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials on May 18 and, being a body distinct from the Senate sitting in its ordinary legislative capacity, was not the body that adopted the amendments in the first place.

Escudero was elected presiding officer of the Senate impeachment court on Monday while Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian was recognized as Senate President.

The petitioners asked the SC to determine “whether the impeachment trial – a constitutional proceeding directly affecting the rights of an impeachable officer and the public office she presently holds – is being conducted before a tribunal whose presiding officer derives authority from constitutionally valid proceedings.”

The petitioners said Duterte, being the respondent in the impeachment trial, is entitled for her case to be heard.

“A respondent may be given all the time to speak and all the opportunity to object, but if the proceeding is presided over by one who is not constitutionally authorized to preside, the hearing remains constitutionally defective. Structural due process protects not only participation, but the legality of the tribunal itself,” they said.

The lawyers filed the manifestation and motion as supervening events to the separate petitions that have been consolidated and earlier filed by their group and Duterte that asked the SC to nullify the impeachment complaints filed against her.

Ping questions Chiz on 16 votes

Meanwhile, Sen. Panfilo Lacson questioned the statement made by Escudero that the threshold to convict Duterte is 16 of 24 senators.

Lacson posed the question yesterday, the second day of the trial, after Escudero on Monday stated his position that the 1987 Constitution was clear that a two-thirds vote of “all” members of the Senate is needed to convict an impeached official.

Lacson asked if it was Escudero’s personal position or the position of the impeachment court.

“My point of inquiry, Mr. presiding officer, is, is this portion of your opening statement a matter of legal opinion on your part as presiding officer, or does it constitute a ruling by the impeachment court?” Lacson asked.
Escudero said because no one objected to his remarks when he stated his position as presiding officer, it was deemed a ruling by the court.

But Escudero echoed Lacson’s point that the issue of threshold is a matter that can be resolved by the Supreme Court (SC) if a petition is filed before it for grave abuse of discretion.

“So, to clarify, yes, I believe it may be considered already as a justiciable controversy, although it is not for us to dictate that but the courts,” Escudero said.

“Given that it is a ruling of the chair, not objected to nor appealed by any member of this court, and therefore stands,” he added.

Cayetano welcomed the ruling that the number to convict is 16 of 24 senator judges, despite the absence of three senators – Jinggoy Estrada, Rodante Marcoleta and Ronald dela Rosa – during the trial.

“As of today, it is very clear that as a court, we have decided that two-thirds of 24. There are 24 members of the Senate today. Twenty are present here today, but there are still 24 members and 16 is the number of senators needed to convict on any of the articles,” Cayetano said.

In pushing his call for the impeachment court to allow Marcoleta and Estrada to participate in the proceedings, Cayetano said he would file a memorandum for all senator judges to allow Marcoleta and Estrada to participate with permission by the Sandiganbayan.

“If they are not allowed to vote, then that will be counted as a vote for acquittal. And that might be favorable to the defense rather than a part of giving a fair trial,” he added.

Sen. Francis Pangilinan said the impeachment court should discuss at another trial date the issue of whether or not Marcoleta and Estrada should be allowed to participate while their non-bailable plunder cases are pending.

The number of senators who are able to physically participate has been trimmed down to 21, following the detention for plunder cases by the Sandiganbayan of Estrada and Marcoleta, and the status of Dela Rosa who is in hiding.

“With 24 members of the Senate, a literal interpretation of this means that conviction requires the affirmative vote of at least 16 senator-judges,” Escudero said.

He cited a 2000 SC decision, Bayan v Zamora, about the Senate’s concurrence of a treaty, where the court held that “the Senate shall be composed of 24 senators, without a tinge of doubt, two-thirds of the figure or not less than 16 members is an unquestionable compliance with the requisite number of votes.” — Evelyn Macairan