‘Forthwith’ means ‘agad’

Coming out of his quiet retirement, former associate justice of the Supreme Court (SC) Adolf Azcuna offered in public the sense of the framers of our country’s 1987 Constitution on the legal and legislative issues erupting from the impeachment case filed against Vice President Sara Duterte. In his Facebook account posted last Tuesday, Azcuna noted in particular the public concern on why the Senate has not taken any action yet on the impeachment complaint.

“My Take In My Most Humble Opinion,” Azcuna posted his unsolicited opinion on his Facebook page to remind and guide our lawmakers on the applicable provisions on impeachment procedures. Azcuna wrote: “The provisions of the Philippine Constitution on the process of impeachment and removal of specified public officials are found, not in the Article on Legislative Power (Art VI) but in a separate Article on Accountability of Public Officers (Art XI).”

Azcuna went on to explain: “It follows that the procedures mandated under this Article on Accountability are not constrained by matters of legislative calendars, providing for periods of recess and temporary adjournments from the work of legislation under Article VI. On the other hand, Article XI says that once the complaint or resolution of impeachment, signed and verified (meaning under oath) by at least 1/3 of the members of the House, is filed, it constitutes the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”

“So even if the senators are on legislative recess, they have to convene, take the required oaths or affirmations, and proceed to trial. There is no need for a call. The provision of Art XI is the call. It is, in fact and in law, an order. SHALL FORTHWITH PROCEED,” the retired justice underscored in his Facebook post.

“The reason is because the task assigned to the Senate by Art XI of the Constitution is an exercise of a power altogether different from the legislative power. It is, in my view, A CONSTITUENT POWER. It is thus not subservient to the norms and constraints of legislative processes. It is governed by the sovereign mandate of the Filipino people as conferred and spelled out in Art XI,” emphasis supplied by Azcuna.

Azcuna shared more of his “humble opinion” on the raging debate on the impeachment case during our Kapihan sa Manila Bay news forum last Wednesday. He was joined in the discussion by lawyer Amando Virgil Ligutan, senior lecturer at the University of the Philippines College of Law who is lead counsel of the complainants in the third impeachment complaint filed on Dec.19 at the House of Representatives by a group of lawyers and clergy.

In their complaint, they also cited as grounds for impeachment the VP’s alleged misuse of P612.5-million confidential and intelligence funds (CIF) in both the Office of the Vice President and while she was concurrent secretary of the Department of Education (DepEd). He believes the House-approved fourth impeachment complaint was strengthened by the first three complaints.

In fact, Ligutan cited, the fourth impeachment complaint included the “kill” threats of VP Sara against a “sitting” President, his wife First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and Speaker Martin Romualdez. Thus, Ligutan welcomed the findings and recommendations of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to approve the prosecution of VP Sara for inciting to sedition and grave threats. The NBI criminal charges against VP Sara could be used as “evidence” in the impeachment trial, he added.

Senate President Francis Escudero has repeatedly assured the public that the impeachment case against VP Sara is deemed submitted to the Upper Chamber. Officially transmitted by the House of Representatives last Feb. 5 before they all adjourned for the election-campaign recess, the receipt of the impeachment complaint was not even recognized on the last session day of the Senators.

The next day, Escudero announced that they could only take up the impeachment complaint when the senators return to session on June 2, or four months later. Half of the Senate, or 12 of them, are “graduating” and most of them are now on the campaign trail for the May 12 national and local elections.

Citing the Senate as a “continuing body” anyway, Escudero subsequently declared the impeachment trial proper would likely cross over to the incoming 20th Congress with the election of the new set of 12 senators. Escudero projected the Senate could most probably start the impeachment trial only a day after the State of the Nation Address (SONA) of Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. (PBBM). The SONA will be on July 28 this year for the traditional joint opening of both chambers for the first regular session of the 20th Congress.

Azcuna countered, however, the present House members of the 19th Congress will bow out of office on June 30 this year. Azcuna pointed out not all of the incumbent 215 House members who signed and approved the Articles of Impeachment will be re-elected to the 20th Congress. Mere filing of the impeachment documents and being docketed at the Senate secretariat did not grant them jurisdiction over the VP, he stressed.

Azcuna warned Escudero of risking “nullity” of the impeachment complaints against VP Sara if the incumbent Senate will not officially acquire and attach its jurisdiction to conduct the impeachment trial. Thus, Azcuna called upon the present batch of 23 senators to convene first and take their new oaths as impeachment judges to assume jurisdiction over this case.

Azcuna’s pieces of advice should not be ignored. After all, he had served not just once but twice as member of bodies that crafted our basic laws of the land. Turning 86 years old this week, he first served in the 1971 Constitutional Convention (Con-con) during the term of PBBM’s late namesake father, ex-president Marcos Sr. After the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution, he was appointed member to the Constitutional Commission (Con-com).

Holding the Tagalog version of the 1987 Constitution pamphlet, Azcuna read the exact translation of impeachment as “paglilitis” and “forthwith” as “agad.”

With conviction, he cited this as the riot act to the Senate: “Simulan agad.”