FOR WANT OF a constitutionally-promulgated Rules on Impeachment, can any impeachable official seek judicial recourse?
During the maiden issue of this paper, this Department wrote thus: “Twin Issues on Impeachment,” a subject matter I never fail to discuss with my law students during my teaching years.
The cornerstone of the question is “constitutionally-promulgated”—meaning: one that was promulgated pursuant to the prescription of the 1987 Constitution, by the entity or body mandated to do it, and for purposes desired by it.
So let me quote the specific constitutional provision as backdrop for this discourse:
“The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section.” (Sec. 3(8), Article XI)
As my classes were always divided on the issue, ditto with today’s opinion makers, including the legal circle of this here town—they cannot come up with a common frame of reference.
JUDICIAL WEIGHT
Listening to the clashing views of today’s luminaries of note, we can surmise that the deeper they dig into the question the clearer it becomes that Congress failed to do what was directed of it by the Fundamental Law.
Thus, to each her/his own interpretation of the 1987 Constitution. Unfortunately for the eager-beavers, the know-it-alls (KIAs), and the political noise machines, only the Supreme Court’s interpretation carries judicial weight.
Today, the sitting Senate President and the soon-to-exit Senate Minority Leader have clashing opinions on critical areas of the Senate sitting as Impeachment Court. Too, retired Supreme Court magistrates have conflicting views as well. Incidentally, their views offer no judicial significance. As someone was wont to say, until the High Court dishes out its ruling, everyone’s opinion is as good or as worthless as anyone’s view.
Why they are not in unison on the many issues surrounding the hottest issue in the entire Islas Filipinas—or squid tactic to some, i.e., (a) whether or not the House of Representatives (HOR) Secretary General—a non-member of Congress—has the discretion to withhold transmission of the verified impeachment complaints filed before it to the office of the Speaker of the House for inclusion in the HOR’s Order of Business as prescribed in Section 3(2), Article XI; (b) whether or not the President can call the Senate to a special session purposely to enable the Upper Chamber to transition into an Impeachment Court; (c) the denotation of the term “forthwith”; (d) the issue of whether or not the Impeachment Court can compel the attendance of the impeached official; and many more, is precisely because the Congress (as distinguished from its chambers) has ignored the provision of Section 3(8) of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.
And because the two houses of Congress did not promulgate “its” rules on impeachment… there appears no constitutionality-compliant Rules on Impeachment at the moment.
QUESTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY
So, as it stands today, the Rules on Impeachment the HOR members insist they have based their actions on are the Rules of the HOR which were promulgated pursuant to the chamber’s legislative powers under Article VI to the exclusion of the members of the Senate.
Without delving on the merits of any suit now pending before the Supreme Court, let me ask again: Are the Rules of the HOR promulgated under Section 16(3), (4), and (5), of Article VI compliant with what is prescribed by the Constitution in Section 3(8) of Article XI which pertains to the subject of Accountability of Public Officers? Same question is raised on the Senate Rules on Impeachment.
THEIR RULES ON IMPEACHMENT
At the risk of sounding like a broken vinyl, let me say it again: when the Constitution talks about Congress it refers to the body created by it under Section 1 of Article VI—the Legislative Department which exercises legislative powers, thus:
“The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.”
Ergo, it is beyond cavil that the body tasked by the Constitution to promulgate the rules on impeachment for purposes of exacting accountability from impeachable officials pursuant to Article XI is the Congress (not each or either chamber) as defined in Section 1, Article VI.
Had the framers of the Constitution intended to allow each chamber to promulgate their respective rules on impeachment, they would have easily worded Section 3(8) of Article XI say: “Each house” shall promulgate “their” rules of impeachment… but, no, the Constitution states it clearly: “The Congress” shall promulgate “its” rules on impeachment to “effectively” carry out the purpose of Section 3, Article XI.
And because the two houses of Congress did not promulgate “its” rules on impeachment pursuant to the diktat of Section 3(8), there appears no constitutionality-compliant Rules on Impeachment at the moment.
Finally, as we cannot offend the subjudice rule, let us instead borrow Ted Failon’s line: “Think about it!”
