Chiz tells House: Respect Senate court’s decision

MANILA, Philippines — Senate President Francis Escudero defended yesterday the court’s move to remand the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte to the House of Representatives.

Escudero said as presiding officer of the court, he has yet to receive the House resolution certifying that the Articles of Impeachment were compliant with the 1987 Constitution – one of two conditions asked by the Senate court when it returned the case to the House prosecution.

“As the prosecuting panel, they (House) should respect and comply with the decision of the court,” Escudero said on the sidelines of the Independence Day rites at Barasoain Church in Malolos, Bulacan, where he delivered a speech as guest speaker.

He added that the impeachment court also expects Vice President Duterte to respond to the summons issued to her to answer the charges.

Escudero denied that the Senate “dribbled” the case by remanding it to the House, as he also rejected the possibility of a “deadlock” after the House deferred receipt of the remanded Articles of Impeachment pending further clarification from the Senate on its directive.

“The impeachment court is sui generis, a class of its own. The court can do whatever it wants to do according to a vote,” Escudero said.

“What we did was the extent that the 19th Congress could do before it adjourned. It is not my style like that in the House of Representatives to criticize the actions of the other chamber. I will respect their actions the same way I expect the House to respect our actions, whether as the Senate or an impeachment court,” he added.

Newly appointed Senate impeachment spokesperson Reginald Tongol yesterday said the court has not yet received the House resolution.

Senate Minority Leader Koko Pimentel, who opposed the move to remand, yesterday told The STAR that while the House fulfilled the first condition, the Senate might have to wait for the 20th Congress for the House to accomplish the second condition of certifying if the next Congress is still interested in prosecuting the case.

Deputy minority leader Risa Hontiveros said the impeachment complaint, despite the hurdles, is “alive and kicking” after the court took jurisdiction when it issued summons to the Vice President.

“Right now we’re in a situation of deferrals and clarifications. At least the impeachment trial is still ongoing, alive and kicking,” Hontiveros said in an ANC interview yesterday.

She added that the “delay” could have been avoided if the other senator-judges clarified the alleged legal infirmities with the House prosecution team.

Among the alleged constitutional infirmities raised before the court by Duterte ally Senator-judge Ronald dela Rosa is the direct transmittal of the alleged “fourth” impeachment complaint, which for him violated the one-year constitutional ban on impeachment.

Remand allowed

For former Supreme Court associate justice Adolfo Azcuna, the remand order, though “novel and unprecedented,” is within the bounds of the 1987 Constitution.

Azcuna acknowledged that senators found themselves in “unchartered territory” when they voted to remand the articles of impeachment to the House, as this is the first that an impeachment trial is caught between two Congresses and the case must cross over from one Congress to another.

“I therefore find the novel and unprecedented step as an adoption of a unique but allowable procedure to ensure a proper cross over of the same Articles of Impeachment from the 19th Congress to the 20th Congress,” Azcuna said.

“The all-important element is that the Impeachment Court has acquired jurisdiction over the case and is still on course to proceed to trial and decision without undue delay after the cross over,” he added.

Azcuna, a member of the 50-man 1986 Constitutional Commission, also said the remand order does not suspend the impeachment court’s jurisdiction and the Senate as an impeachment court remains open and active following the oaths taken by Escudero and the 22 senator-judges earlier this week.

He said the certifications the Senate asked of the House are “merely formal requirements” to ensure the cross over of the same articles of impeachment to the 20th Congress and the readiness of the new House of the 20th Congress to prosecute.

In returning the case to the House, the Senate asked it to certify its compliance with the Constitution in the impeachment process, and for the 20th Congress of the House to signify its willingness to pursue the case.

In a separate statement to The STAR, retired SC associate justice Antonio Carpio said the House resolution certifying that the impeachment proceedings against Duterte initiated on Feb. 5 did not violate the 1987 Constitution is a “swift and full compliance” of the Senate remand order.

“We now await VP Sara to comply with the summons under an Order of the Impeachment Court requiring her to file her Answer within 10 days,” Carpio said.

Philippine Constitution framer Rene Sarmiento, in an interview with “Storycon” on One News yesterday, said if a petition is raised before the high court, then the tribunal should intervene since they involve constitutional questions.

“If one petitions that the Senate committed grave abuse of discretion for being whimsical and arrogant, then the SC should entertain that petition,” Sarmiento said.

For him, basing the dismissal on the case’s supposed inability to cross over would be “whimsical and capricious.”

“The SC has to come in,” Sarmiento reiterated, adding, “The people must be mindful of this issue because this is a political trial, which means the senators and the Filipino people are all involved in this process.”

Convene

Following the line “If there is a will, there is a way,” the party-list group Bayan Muna called on the Senate yesterday to continue convening itself as an Impeachment Court even if the bicameral Congress is in recess until July 27.

Neri Colmenares, the group’s former representative, cited the Constitution which provides that even if Senate has adjourned as a legislate body, it can “still convene as an Impeachment Court because the impeachment court is not convened as a legislative body.”

“Since the OVP was ordered by the Impeachment Court on June 11 to submit her answer within a non-extendible period of 10 days, the Court should convene on June 21 to receive it and start the trial,” Colmenares said. “It is not bound by its legislative calendar.”

Colmenares also urged the Filipino people to protest against the derailing of the impeachment complaint and to press the Senate to convene on June 21.

Critics of the remand order said the Senate should not lawyer for the defense team, and instead hear the explanation from the House prosecution panel instead.

Senator-elect Ping Lacson said he agreed with the Philippine Constitution Association view that the remand compromised the impeachment process.

“The Senate, even after constituting itself into an impeachment court, may still be subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court if its action constitutes grave abuse of discretion as in the case of Ernesto Francisco vs the House of Representatives in 2003,” Lacson said.

Reelected Rep. Joel Chua of Manila’s third district, whose committee investigated the still unaccounted P612.5 million in confidential funds issued to the Vice President, said the impeachment court judges became defense lawyers themselves. –  Delon Porcalla, Jose Rodel Clapano, Daphne Galvez, EJ Macababbad