No due process if no chance to answer petitions to junk Articles of Impeachment vs. VP Sara — Carpio

The prosecution panel of the House of Representatives was not given the chance to answer or comment on the two petitions before the Supreme Court asking it to dismiss the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, according to retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio. 

In an interview in Super Radyo dzBB on Sunday, Carpio said there is no due process if the House was not given the opportunity to answer the said petitions.

On Friday, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to declare the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as “unconstitutional”.

Voting 13-0, the SC ruled unanimously, deeming that the Articles of Impeachment are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution. Moreover, magistrates ruled that the articles violate the right to due process.

 “In this case there are two petitions (before the) Supreme Court kay VP Sara at kay Atty. (Israelito) Torreon.  The House was never made to comment. Walang opportunity to comment. Hindi inorder (It was not ordered),” Carpio said.

“Normally pag nag habla ka, you file your complaint, yung kabila will be allowed to answer para due process. If you were not heard through a comment, through an answer, walang due process yun e,” he pointed out.

Aside from this, Carpio said there was also no oral argument.

"Kasi 'pag you were not heard by through a comment, through an answer, walang due process 'yun eh. Ito walang order for the House to comment," he observed.

In Joseph Morong's report on 24 Oras Weekend on Sunday, retired SC Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna said the SC seemingly was giving a new definition as to when an impeachment case should begin that goes against the prevailing policy.

Based on the court decision of Franciso Jr. vs. House of Representatives of 2003, it an impeachment complaint is considered initiated when it is included in the House's order of business and referred to a committee.

Azcuna said, "... recall that in the Davide case the Supreme Court defined initiating an impeachment complaint as putting in the order of business and referring it to a proper committee."

He said, "the new definition, however, would now cover a situation where the complaint were not referred to a committee and, after the lapse of the time to do so, archived, and thus, the Supreme Court said, effectively dismissed."

Azcuna appealed to the High Court to consider the impeachment complaint as valid based on the actions under previous definition under the Doctrine of Operative Facts and to use the new definition in succeeding or future cases.

Carpio agreed with Azcuna.

"Ang ginagawa ng Supreme Court, nire-retroact nila to this case, eh the House, the people did not know that there was this requirement because there was no requirement like this. You cannot make it retroactive, it should be prospective--- 'yun ang doctrine of operative fact," Carpio said.

He added: "If there is a new requirement you cannot say na uy bakit hindi mo sinunod ito? Eh paano mo nga isunod eh wala nga 'yun, it did not exist at the time."

Also, Carpio said the first definition also did not require a hearing on impeachment complaints that the House majority voted on.

"Ang sabi ngayon ng Supreme Court... it cannot be an ex-party hearing, it has toe be an actual hearing--- that will require time."

For Carpio, the House could make an appeal to the SC to correct these supposed errors.

"I think out of courtesy to the SC, hintayin nila 'yung motion for reconsideration... Let's give the SC an opportunity to correct itself. So kahit na unanimous sila, we can point out na first of all, mayroon namang approval," he said.

For retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, the SC decision should be respected whichever side people were on but said the House can still appeal or ask for a clarification.

"... regardless of whether we are for or against the decision, let us respect it...note that the decision is not yet final. It is still subject to a motion for reconsideration (or for clarification) by the House of Representatives, if it so wants to file one."

Panganiban said if it were up to him, instead of making a rushed decision, the court should have issued a status quo order or for the Senate not to hear the impeachment complaint while a petition was still being heard.

He added an oral argument should also have been called before the SC justices casted their votes.  — RF, GMA Integrated News