Azcuna: Senate action ensures impeachment raps cross from 19th to 20th congresses

The Senate impeachment court's move to return to the House of Representatives the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte was a unique but allowable step that "ensured" the raps crossing over from the 19th to 20th congresses, retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna said on Wednesday.

Azcuna issued the statement on Facebook after the impeachment court voted to return to the House of Representatives without dismissing or terminating the impeachment case until such time that:

• The House of Representatives certified to the non-violation of Article XI, Section 3, paragraph 5 of the Constitution, 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"; and
• The House of Representatives of the 20th Congress communicated to the Senate that it was willing and ready to pursue the impeachment complaint against the Vice President.

"I first declined to comment as I find this as uncharted territory mainly for the reason that this never happened before. I then realized that this never happened before because this is the first time that an impeachment trial is caught between two Congresses and the case must cross over from one Congress to another," Azcuna said.

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

Azcuna was also a member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution. He drafted Article XI, which dealt with the accountability of public officers, including impeachable officials.

"I also wrote the procedural section including the word 'forthwith' referring to the need for the Senate to proceed to trial after the House itself adopts by one-third or more votes a resolution of impeachment which thereby constitutes the articles of impeachment such that 'trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed,' and it is precisely meant to mean immediately and without unreasonable delay or in the national language official version 'agad-agad'," Azcuna said.

Eighteen senator-judges voted for the motion to return the articles of impeachment to the House. Five voted against it.

The negative votes came from Minority Leader Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel III, Deputy Minority Leader Risa Hontiveros, Sen. Grace Poe, Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian, and Sen. Nancy Binay.

Those who voted yes were Escudero, Dela Rosa, Sen. Robin Padilla, Sen. Christopher Lawrence "Bong" Go, Senate Majority Leader Francis Tolentino, Sen. Imee Marcos, Sen. Cynthia Villar, Sen. Mark Villar, Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada, Sen. JV Ejercito, Sen. Ramon Revilla Jr., Sen. Joel Villanueva, Sen. Lito Lapid, Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, Sen. Pia Cayetano, Sen. Loren Legarda, Sen. Raffy Tulfo, and Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri.

The House on Wednesday night adopted House Resolution No. 2346, certifying that the impeachment complied with the 1987 Constitution.

The plenary, however, deferred the House's acceptance of the articles of impeachment while seeking clarification from the Senate regarding its move.

"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 crossover," Azcuna said.

Likewise, former Integrated Bar of the Philippines president Domingo Cayosa does not see anything wrong with the Senate’s action. 

“There is no direct or clear violation naman kasi internal proseso na nila yan. What is important is it wont delay the trial which has happened,” he said in Joseph Morong’s report in “24 Oras” on Wednesday.

Christian Monsod, who was also an author of the 1987 Constitution alongside Azcuna, said the move by the Senate only derailed the impeachment proceedings. 

“Yes. Kasi that’s not part of their powers. Kasi if there is a constitutionality issue, that’s the Supreme Court… These people have another agenda other than obeying the mandate of the Constitution. Kasi self-executory ‘yung Constitution eh,” he said. 

“Nakalimutan yata nila that they are senators because the people voted them as senators, so they are senators of the people. They are not senators of Vice President Sara Duterte. Dapat mag-inhibit themselves if they have any integrity,” Monsod added. 

(That's not part of their powers. If there's a constitutionality issue, it can be questioned before the Supreme Court... These people have another agenda other than obeying the mandate of the Constitution. The Constitution is self-executory. They must have forgotten that they are senators because the people voted for them to be senators, so they are senators of the people. They are not senators of Vice President Sara Duterte. They must inhibit themselves if they have integrity.)

For his part, University of the Philippines College of Law assistant professor Paolo Tamase agreed that the return of impeachment articles is unconstitutional. 

“Dapat ma-offend yung House. Yung remand essentially seconds guesses yung House kung ano yung ginawa nya and puts the Senate higher.  Co-equal sila, nirerespeto nila yung isa’t isa,” he said. 

(The House has the right to be offended. The remand essentially second guesses the action of the House and puts the Senate in a higher status. They should be co-equal, respecting each other.) 

“Hindi naman kinukwestiyon ng Senado 'pag ang House nagpapasa ng bills sa kanila, kung sinunod ba ng House yung proseso nila. So bakit kinukwestiyon ng Senado ngayon kung sinunod ng House yung proseso nila sa pagpapasa ng impeachment complaint?” Tamase also said. 

(The Senate does not question the House if there are bills referred to them or if the House followed its process. So why does the Senate now question the House if they followed the procedure in approving an impeachment complaint?) 

However, Senate President Francis Escudero, who presides over the impeachment court, said that both chambers of Congress are not co-equal when it comes to the impeachment trial. 

“Hindi kami pantay sa bagay na ito... ‘Di ito parang bicam na kailangan mag-agree. Ito ay kautusan galing sa impeachment court na nakatuon sa prosecutor na isa lamang partido sa kaso,” Escudero said. 

(We are not on the same level when it comes to this matter... This is not like a bicameral committee, wherein we should both agree. This is an order from the impeachment court that implies that there is only one party to the case.) 

Monsod said that the 20th Congress can continue working on the impeachment trial. 

“It should continue. Because ang argument ni Tolentino is that there is no quorum because unlike in the United States, there’s always a quorum. ‘Pag 12 lang, hindi quorum. Mali siya, right? Sabi ko, the term of office niya at saka those who are leaving expires at noon of June 30. And at noon of June 30, starts the term of the newly elected. So there's never only 12."

(It should continue. Because Tolentino’s argument is that there is no quorum unlike in the United States that there’s always a quorum. If there’s only 12, there’s no quorum. He’s wrong on that part. His term and those who are leaving expires at noon of June 30 and by then, the term of the newly elected senators starts. So there’s never only 12.) –NB, GMA Integrated News