THE MAN BEHIND the salient Constitutional provisions embarking on impeachment of public officials has spoken.
According to former Supreme Court Justice Adolf Azcuna, there’s no compelling reason for an impeachment case to cease just because of the supposed changes in the members of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court.
Azcuna, who formed part of the legal luminaries who crafted the 1987 Constitution, categorically said that the 20th Congress may continue the impeachment trial but only after the Senate gets to read the Articles of Impeachment that would effectively give the members of the 20th Congress the jurisdiction over the case.
“All he needs is to get the Articles read to the Senate and served on the Respondent. That will trigger the Senate’s jurisdiction over the case. The Senate in the 20th Congress can continue the process of proceeding with the trial,” Azcuna said in a Facebook post.
SUPREME OVER SENATE
The Senate, sitting as impeachment court, recently ruled to favor a motion filed by Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano via 18 affirmative votes against five, effectively remanding the Articles of Impeachment back to where it emanated — at the House of Representatives.
For the five senators who voted against Cayetano’s motion, the act in itself seemed more of like an outright dismissal for which Azcuna insisted that there’s still a way to turn the tide.
The former magistrate said that only the Supreme Court has the power to reverse the “dismissal.”
“[The dismissal] can be reversed by the Supreme Court or by the Senate of the 20th Congress on a proper motion for reconsideration,” Azcuna noted.
FORTHWITH PROCEED
Under Article XI Section 3(4) of the 1987 Constitution, a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, “shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”
Azcuna however did not categorically say whether or not the Senate erred when it delayed the facilitation of the impeachment case.
The University of the Philippines College of Law likewise asked the senate to comply with its constitutional duty to “forthwith proceed” with VP Sara’s impeachment trial.
Forthwith, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, means “without any delay.”
SENATE PRESIDENCY
According to UP Diliman political science Professor Maria Ela Atienza, the delay may have something to do with senate leadership.
“Escudero may be hedging and calculating, thinking also of saving his position as Senate President […] he does not want to offend the Dutertes and pro-Duterte senators, possibly to save his hold of the presidency of the Senate,” Atienza was quoted in a news report published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
“Admittedly, it gives a bad impression of having delayed the impeachment trial,” This shows that he cannot lead the Senate in doing its constitutional role to convene as an impeachment court. He lacks integrity and seems not to be accountable to the public,” she added.
Sen. Imee Marcos and incoming Vicente Sotto III are keen on the idea of taking the lead over the upper legislative chamber.
DEFENSIVE STANCE
Escudero in his capacity as presiding judge of the impeachment court, clarified that the move is not in any way synonymous to dismissal even as he claimed that Duterte has already been summoned to file a rejoinder within 10 days.
The impeachment court’s presiding judge said that returning the articles of impeachment “back to the sender” will allow the House of Representatives to make remedial legislative measures that would legitimize the “crossover” of the impeachment trial from the 19th to the 20th Congress.
He likewise warded off claims that neither politics nor the Senate presidency has something to do with the decision of the 18 Senator-Judges.
AMENDED MOTION
Cayetano’s motion (which is an amended version of Senior-Judge Ronald Dela Rosa’s proposal) embarks on two salient conditions for the House of Representatives to comply with.
Citing provisions under the 1987 Constitution, the amended motion explicitly required the House of Representatives to certify the impeachment complaint for the non violation of the 1987 Constitution.
He particularly hinted at Article XI, Section 3, paragraph 5 which provides that “No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within one year; include the circumstances on the filing of the first three impeachment complaints.”
Cayetano likewise cited the need for the House of Representatives of the 20th Congress to communicate with the Senate expressing intent to pursue the impeachment complaint against the Vice President.