Groups ask SC to allow VP Sara to face impeachment court

Various groups on Tuesday called on the Supreme Court to reverse its decision on the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte to allow the latter to face the Senate impeachment court.

In a press conference, Tindig Pilipinas, Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), August 21 Movement, among other organizations, said that public office, including the Vice Presidency, is not a matter of right but a privilege.

“A big part of the [Supreme Court] ruling is about due process. The Supreme Court said that while Article 11 [of the Constitution] does not provide for due process [on the part of the impeachable official, ang due process ay isang prinsipyo na dapat tumatak sa lahat ng mga probisyon ng Constitution, kasama ang impeachment process. At iyon ang naging batayan ng Korte Suprema para magtakda ng bagong requirements, the seven new requirements to quote former Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno,” lawyer Barry Gutierrez of Tindig Pilipinas said.

(The Supreme Court said due process is embedded in every Constitutional provision, and that was the basis of the High Court for issuing new requirements. )

“Ano ang problema rito? Article 3 Section 2 [of the Constitution] states that due process applies to deprivation of right to life, liberty, and property. Pero, malinaw rin na sa madaming pagkakataon, kinlaro ng Korte Suprema na ang public office, hindi ‘yan napapaloob sa [right to] life, liberty, and certainly not property. Walang right to public office. Pribilehiyo ang humawak at maupo sa isang public office,” Gutierrez, who also signed off on the UP College of Law Faculty members' statement calling on the High Court to reconsider its decision on the Vice President’s case, added.

(What is the problem here? The Supreme Court, in many instances, has clarified that public office is not covered under the right to life, liberty, and certainly not property. There is no right to public office. It is a privilege to occupy public office.)

He further said the Supreme Court decision on the impeachment case tends to favor the occupant of the public office, including the Vice President, rather than the people who elected the public officials.

“Bakit parang tinatrato natin na ‘yung pag-upo ng isang mataas na opisyal, sa kaso na ito ni Vice President Sara Duterte, sa kanyang pwesto, na tila ba parang karapatan niya na i-defend laban sa isang reklamo na sinampa ng taong bayan sa ilalim ng proseso ng impeachment? Parang binabago ang perspektiba ng impeachment. Mula sa isang proseso para ipagtanggol ang interes ng taong bayan laban sa posibleng katiwalian ng isang mataas na opisyal, naging isang proseso [na] kung saan ang isang mataas na opisyal ay dinidepensahan ang kanyang karapatan sa kanyang pwesto,” Gutierrez said.

(Why are we treating the occupant of a public office, in this case the Vice President...as if she has to defend her right to public office against a case filed by the people under the process of impeachment? It changes the perspective of impeachment: from an accountability process that defends public interest to a process wherein a high-ranking official can defend her right to occupy public office.)

At the end of the day, Gutierrez said, upholding the impeachment case and allowing the impeachment trial to proceed is due process in itself because it allows the Vice President to defend herself from allegations before the Senate impeachment court.

“The Vice President won’t lose a chance to answer all the allegations against her [if we let this impeachment case proceed]. The PHILCONSA said the same thing: the impeachment trial is the due process,” he added, referring to Philippine Constitution Association led by Puno. 

Former Supreme Court spokesperson Theodore Te of FLAG backed Gutierrez, saying that the right to due process as provided under the Constitution does not cover public office.

“Under our Charter, the coverage of due process is [right to] life, liberty, property. There’s nothing in pursuit of happiness. Just the right to these three: life, liberty and property. So, in an impeachment case, it is not about a death penalty or imprisonment. Because the only thing that a Senate acting as an impeachment tribunal can do is to oust the official from office,” Te said.

“So the only issue is, does it fall under property? Supreme Court decisions have always stated that public office is not property. The Constitution recognizes the right to be gainfully employed falls under property. But in an impeachment, this is about continuation in public office, the fitness to remain in public office, not the right to be employed,” he added.

In the event the Supreme Court upholds its decision, Te said it will open the floodgates for impeachable officials to fight for their “right” to hold public office, even if they are unfit for the position.

“Is the court saying now that public office is included in the right to property that can be fought to the end, until before the Supreme Court. If that is the case, all public officials will then claim public office as a right to property that you can pass on...and so I hope that they won’t interpret the right to property that way,” he said.

“Defining right to property as right to hold public office...that is what is disturbing as an academic who teaches law and as a practicing lawyer. That is why I want the Supreme Court to reconsider their decision, because this [redefinition] is the consequence of that decision,” he added.

Sought for comment, Duterte's camp said they respect everybody's opinion.

"We respect the opinions of all sectors, be it aligned with our position or not. Based on news reports, we understand that the respondents will also seek reconsideration of the SC decision. As I’ve mentioned before, that is well within their right and prerogative, and we will simply submit our comment in due time, if necessary," Atty. Michael Poa, Duterte's impeachment trial spokesperson, said. —AOL, GMA Integrated News