Ex-IBP chief on Sara Duterte impeachment: SC avoids political issues

Former Integrated Bar of the Philippines president Atty. Domingo Cayosa said the Supreme Court (SC) avoids political questions as much as possible.

This came after the House of Representatives prosecution panel said its last resort is the SC should the Senate move to dismiss the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte.

“Ang SC, as much as possible, ina-avoid ‘yung mga political questions na ‘yan,” Cayosa told Super Radyo dzBB in an interview, as reported by Jonathan Andal on Unang Balita on Monday.

(The Supreme Court, as much as possible, avoids those political questions.)

“Pangalawa, inaabot ng siyam-siyam ang Supreme Court. Kumbaga, tapos na ‘yung issue, saka lang sila magdedesisyon,” he added.

(Second, the Supreme Court takes an extremely long time. By the time they make a decision, the issue is already over.)

Last week, Duterte entered a “not guilty” plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her, which she called merely a “scrap of paper.” 

In response, the prosecution panel asked the Senate impeachment court to reject Duterte's bid to dismiss the impeachment case against her, saying the severity of the charges requires no less than a full and transparent trial and her conviction.

According to the report, based on the 11-step impeachment proceedings released by the Senate, half of the process has already been completed as both the defense and prosecution have submitted their answers. The next step is for the Vice President to appear before the impeachment court.

The House of Representatives impeached Duterte on February 5 with more than 200 congressmen endorsing the verified complaint against her, which has been transmitted to the Senate for her impeachment trial.

The Senate sitting as an impeachment court however voted last June 10 to return to the House of Representatives the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte without dismissing or terminating the case until such time that:

• The House of Representatives certifies 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 communicates to the Senate that it is willing and ready to pursue the impeachment complaint against the Vice President.

The Senate Sergeant-At-Arms served on June 11 the writ of summons for Duterte at her office in Mandaluyong City. Duterte was given a non-extendible period of 10 days to answer to the Articles of Impeachment against her.

'Baffled'

A signatory to the Articles of Impeachment on Monday questioned the decision of the impeachment court to remand the Articles to the House of Representatives, as he confirmed his willingness to still pursue the charges against the vice president.

"First of all, it baffles me as to why the Articles of Impeachment was remanded here in the House of Representatives. The Senate, acting as an impeachment court, I believe it isn't up to them to say whether or not constitutional ang ginagawa namin dito sa Kongreso (what we do here in the House is constitutional or not). Because in all things that we do, in all legislative measures that we do, there is a presumption of regularity and constitutionality. This principle is in line with law and with the logic of co-equal powers," 4Ps Party-list Representative JC Abalos told reporters in an ambush interview.

Abalos warned that compliance with the impeachment court's second requirement for the House of Representatives in the 20th Congress to certify that it is still willing to pursue the impeachment may violate the constitutional provision barring more than one impeachment complaint against one impeachable official within one year.

"Pero ako po, gusto natin maiwasan ang tinatawag natin 'yung sa one-year rule. And naniniwala po ako na since na-transmit na sa Senate, it is up to them. They have to continue with it. And kung may magsasabi man na unconstitutional 'yan, it is the judiciary. Not the Senate. But that's just my humble opinion," he explained.

(As for me, we want to avoid [violating] the one-year rule. And I believe that since the Articles of Impeachment was already transmitted to the Senate, it is up to them. They have to continue with it. And if there is anyone who can say it is unconstitutional, it is the judiciary...)

"My personal opinion on it, there's no need to vote again because we have already transmitted it," the lawmaker added.

Abalos noted that this is the first time that the actions of the House is being questioned.

"Sa lahat ng mga panukalang batas na ipinasa ng Kongreso noong 19th Congress, ako, personal opinion ko po at personal observation ko, ito po yata ang pinakaunang pagkakataon kung saan kailangan namin mag-certify na constitutional ang ginagawa po namin. That's why it baffles me. Kung constitutional man o hindi ang ginagawa ng House of Representatives, it is up to the judiciary and not the Senate as an impeachment court. Their role is to try and proceed with the trial forthwith," he emphasized.

(In all the proposed bills that were passed by the House of the 19th Congress, my personal opinion and based on my personal observation, this is the first time that we have to certify that what we are doing is constitutional. That's why it baffles me. It is up to the judiciary and not the Senate as an impeachment court to determine if what the House of Representatives is doing is constitutional or not...)

When asked how he will vote if the House asks for a vote on the matter, Abalos replied, "If necessary and if compliant with the Constitution, then yes. But I am of the opinion na napasa na po namin sa (that we already transmitted it to the) Senate and it should have been proceeded forthwith."  —AOL/KG, GMA Integrated News