No abuse of discretion in new Sara Duterte impeachment threshold rule — Tongol

There was no abuse of authority when the senator-judges decided to base the two-thirds vote to convict the impeached Vice President Sara Duterte on the number of senators who are capable of "legally and factually participating in the impeachment proceedings."

In an interview with Unang Hirit’s On Record Thursday, Senate impeachment court spokesperson Reginald Tongol said the senator-judges conducted due diligence before voting.

He said that the impeachment court consulted retired Supreme Court justices, heard oral arguments, and deliberated before issuing its ruling on the voting threshold.

These steps could be relevant to any future claim of grave abuse of discretion because the Senate impeachment court showed that the issue had been subjected to extensive consideration, he added.

"If you look at the actions of the impeachment court, nag-amici curiae, nag-oral arguments, tapos nag-deliberations (they invited amici curiae, they had oral arguments and then deliberations). So, itong mga proseso na ito (these processes) ensure that the impeachment court came up with this decision with due diligence," Tongol said.

"Ibig sabihin noon, it is antithetical to the grave abuse na sasabihin mo doon sa Korte Suprema. So, technically, this decision by the impeachment court is constitutionally bulletproof," he added.

He said the SC may intervene on the issue of voting threshold if the Senate impeachment court committed grave abuse of discretion, .

“There's always a recourse na kapag ikaw ay aggrieved sa isang desisyon ng isang korte, lagi mong ita-try at ita-try na iakyat sa Korte Suprema to avail of your Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari,” he said.

(There's always a recourse when you are aggrieved by a decision of a court, you will always try to go to the Supreme Court to avail of your Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari.)

“At ipapakita mo na may grave abuse of discretion. Ito 'yung judicial power para matingnan kung ang isang body ay may grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,” he added.

(And you will show that there is grave abuse of discretion. This is the judicial power to see if there is grave abuse of discretion by a body, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.)

According to Tongol, the defense earlier said it would proceed with "abundance of caution,” meaning it will not waive its option to question the proceedings before the SC.

Meanwhile, House prosecution panel spokesperson Benjamin Tolosa Jr. said the six senators who did not participate in the proceedings could still pursue legal remedies before the SC if they choose to do so.

“Ang sabi nila diyan, ito ay political question na ang Senado lamang, sitting as impeachment court, ang makakapag-determine at hindi ito dapat panghimasukan ng Supreme Court,” Tolosa told Unang Balita.

(They said that this is a political question that only the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, can determine and that the Supreme Court should not interfere.)

Asked about Duterte's spokesperson Atty. Paolo Panelo’s claim that the Senate impeachment court had lost its legal and moral authority to continue the trial, Tolosa said, “Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. No matter how wrong that opinion may be.”

The Senate impeachment court on Wednesday voted to base the two-thirds vote to convict impeached Vice President Sara Duterte on the number of senators who are capable of "legally and factually participating in the impeachment proceedings."

The vote on Wednesday, in effect, set aside the ruling on July 6 by presiding officer Senator-judge Francis "Chiz" Escudero, who set the number of votes needed to convict at 16, or two-thirds of all the 24 senators.

Thirteen senator-judges voted in favor of the motion put forward by Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo, who sought reconsideration of the July 6 ruling after some senators became unavailable to participate in the impeachment trial.—AOL, GMA News