Lawyers question Escudero's authority to preside over Sara Duterte impeachment trial

Several lawyers have questioned Senator Francis "Chiz" Escudero's authority to preside over Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial.

In a very urgent manifestation with motion filed on Monday, the group led by lawyer Israelito Torreon asked the Supreme Court (SC) to issue a status quo ante order barring the impeachment court and its officers from proceeding with the trial until the question over Escudero's authority to preside has been resolved.

The petitioners also asked the SC to issue orders ensuring that the trial proceeds only under Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials that were validly adopted and under a presiding officer whose authority is free from any unresolved constitutional challenge.

"Petitioners, respectfully, submit that these developments warrant the consolidated or, at the very least, coordinated resolution by this Honorable Court," it read.

"Pending such resolution, petitioners further respectfully pray for appropriate interim relief to preserve the constitutional integrity of the impeachment proceedings and to prevent the trial from proceeding under a presiding officer whose authority remains under serious and unresolved constitutional challenge," it added.

The manifestation was filed in connection with the consolidated petitions filed by Torreon and Duterte challenging the impeachment proceedings.

On Monday, Escudero was formally elected as presiding officer of the trial.

Senators Kiko Pangilinan and former Senate President Tito Sotto have said that there is no explicit constitutional provision that the Senate President should be the presiding officer of the impeachment trial.

However, Senator Alan Peter Cayetano argued that the amendment allowing a non-Senate President to preside is void.

"Institutional integrity, jurisdictional regularity, and due process all require that impeachment proceedings be conducted only under a presiding officer whose authority to preside is beyond serious constitutional question, since a litigant is entitled to have the case heard by the decision maker designated by law, and proceedings before an officer who lacks such authority are invalid regardless of the fairness with which they are conducted," the petitioners said.

Meanwhile, the petitioners said that the validity of the June 3 Senate session—which vacated all leadership posts and installed Senator Sherwin Gatchalian as Senate President Pro Tempore—has become a "prejudicial and antecedent constitutional issue" in the impeachment trial.

They also argued that the amendment to Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials—which allows another senator to be elected as presiding officer—is void.

The petitioners claimed that no quorum was present during the June 3 session, that the amendment violated the Senate's one-day notice rule, and that it was adopted by the wrong body.

They said the impeachment trial had "already commenced under disputed leadership."

"The longer this uncertainty is allowed to persist and the further the proceedings advance, the greater the risk that the entire impeachment trial may later be declared void for lack of a validly constituted and validly presided tribunal—with all the attendant waste of public resources, delay, public confusion, institutional injury, and prejudice to all parties concerned, petitioner Vice President foremost among them," they said.

On March 27, lawyers Torreon, Vic Rodriguez, Rescie Angelli Rizada-Nolasco, Martin Delgra III, Wendel Avisado, James Patrick Bondoc, Raul Lambino, Luna Maria Acosta-Manlitoc, Jesus Hinlo Jr., and Dr. Richard Mata asked the SC to issue a TRO against the impeachment proceedings.

Duterte filed a separate petition on March 30.

A total of four petitions have been filed with the SC in connection with the impeachment proceedings. The first two were consolidated by the High Court, while the remaining petitions were filed after the consolidation. — VDV/VBL, GMA News