Lawyers, deans back impeach court ruling on ‘2/3’ threshold
Petitions challenging the Senate impeachment court’s decision to reduce the number of votes needed to convict—or acquit—Vice President Sara Duterte are not yet ripe for the Supreme Court to address since her trial has not yet reached the judgment stage.
This was the view shared by a group of law school deans, professors and private practitioners at a press conference held on Friday regarding the impeachment court’s Sept. 23 ruling.
As one of them put it, the ruling was a “sound upholding of the two-thirds requirement” and embodied the spirit of the 1987 Constitution.
In a 13-0 vote, the court on Wednesday decided that the constitutional provision setting the conviction threshold at two-thirds of the senator-judges would apply only to those actually participating in the trial. The ruling effectively reduced the threshold from 16 votes to 14 votes, if based on the 20 senator-judges currently in attendance.
Likely to be junked
Mario Docena, dean of Emilio Aguinaldo College Institute of Law and Justice, said the high tribunal would likely dismiss the petition filed on Thursday by former Executive Secretary Victor Rodriguez asking the Supreme Court to nullify the impeachment court’s move.
Aside from the issue being “not yet ripe for adjudication,” Docena said, Rodriguez may not have any legal standing to seek such intervention.
“In the first place, why him, what is his interest? Is he adversely affected? He should be able to convince the Supreme Court that he has an interest to be protected … He will suffer prejudice if his petition is not acted upon,” Docena said.
In his petition for certiorari and prohibition, Rodriguez invoked his being a taxpayer and a citizen with “direct interest in preventing the expenditure of public funds pursuant to an allegedly unconstitutional governmental act.”
For Pearlito Campanilla, dean of Universidad de Manila’s College of Law, the impeachment court committed no abuse of discretion—as alleged by Rodriguez—because it even sought guidance from three retired Supreme Court chief justices and an ex-associate justice.
“This in itself strips the conditions that there was grave abuse of discretion … No one is entitled yet to file a case in the Supreme Court to assail or to attack that decision by the Senate,” Campanilla said.
Jeffrey Aguilar, a law professor at University of Caloocan, noted that, as a general rule, the Supreme Court would rather not engage in purely academic discussions where only advisory opinion is being sought.
“A requisite for the exercise of power of judicial review of the Supreme Court is that there must be an actual case, an actual controversy, that there must be someone or something that is going to be injured. Right now, there seems there is none,” Aguilar said.
Also at Friday’s press conference were Leo Katindig of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Law and private lawyer Anne Berja.
The group also stressed that the total composition of senators serving as judges is not fixed at 24 as members have to be qualified and capable to adjudicate.
“Trial means that a senator must be present there. If you are not present, your qualifications and capacity are diminished … Trial means … you (as a judge) should hear both parties, you evaluate, examine the witnesses, determine their credibility,” Campanilla said.
Acquittal vote also lower
Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta are currently in detention on plunder charges, Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa has been in hiding after the International Criminal Court ordered his arrest, while Sen. Loren Legarda has been on medical leave since early August.
“In my legal opinion, they can’t be counted in and they can’t vote,” said Campanilla. “How can you be competent to judge … you must be able to participate in the discussions … to see their demeanors, their behaviors because these are very critical for you to arrive at a competency. And this competency makes your qualification.”
Reading out a joint statement issued by the group, Beria said that “While the votes required to convict is reduced to 14, the number to secure acquittal is likewise substantially reduced from nine to seven.”
“This demonstrates an important point … The change in the method of computation does not in itself give either side an advantage,” he said.
