Senate told: Do this and you violate Constitution
The Senate risks violating the 1987 Constitution if it decides to dismiss the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte through a resolution without even hearing the case as mandated by the Charter, according to University of the Philippines College of Law assistant professor and lawyer Paolo Tamase.
Reelected Manila Rep. Joel Chua, a member of the House of Representatives prosecution panel, agreed, saying a Senate dismissal without trial could be deemed unconstitutional.
“Under the Constitution, the Senate’s job is to hear [an impeachment complaint] while ours is to prosecute. So I can’t think of how they could dismiss it without first conducting the trial, which is their constitutional mandate,” Chua said on Wednesday.
Former Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares, a public prosecutor in the impeachment of former Chief Justice Renato Corona, said the Senate could still push through with the trial even with the shift to the 20th Congress.
He said he disagrees with the view that the impeachment complaint against the Vice President could not proceed to the next Congress because the Senate, as the sitting impeachment court, is bound by a separate set of rules different from the Senate as a legislative body.
Next battleground
Gabriela women’s party list Rep. Arlene Brosas, for her part, criticized Senate President Francis Escudero’s proposal for a plenary vote on whether to proceed with the trial, stressing that “this is not a matter of preference [but] a constitutional mandate that must be fulfilled without delay or evasion.”
Tamase said that if senators sign the resolution that surfaced on Wednesday, which seeks the “de facto dismissal” of the articles of impeachment signed by 215 House lawmakers last Feb. 5, the Supreme Court could be the next battleground for Duterte’s impeachment.
“You can expect petitions to be filed at the Supreme Court to ask them to nullify the resolution for grave abuse of discretion and violating the Constitution,” Tamase, a constitutional law expert, told the Inquirer. “In the expanded power of the Supreme Court under the 1987 Constitution, that’s within their power if they want to step in and they find a grave constitutional violation.”
Tamase stressed that the Senate has a constitutional duty to “try and decide cases of impeachment,” which means to “listen to what the evidence and the arguments are, and to come up with a decision on whether the Vice President is guilty [and] convicted or acquitted on impeachable offenses.”
Delay
“I think they should as a matter of duty take on the case,” he said, otherwise “it’s a violation of the Constitution, that’s clear to me.”
Duterte is facing multiple charges that can cause her removal from office, including culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, and other high crimes, all stemming from her alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds during her concurrent tenure as vice president and education secretary from 2022 to 2024.
Escudero initially assured the public that the Senate would convene into an impeachment court once Congress resumes session on June 2 after the congressional break and the May 12 midterm elections.
The Senate leader earlier also expressed his view that the impeachment complaint, though filed under the 19th Congress, could continue for trial in the 20th Congress under the “continuing body” principle.
This view is shared by many legal experts, including Tamase, who stressed that impeachment is a “special creature” not bound by Senate rules on ordinary legislative matters.
But after the administration’s senatorial slate took a beating in the polls, Escudero has since changed tune and said it might no longer be possible for the complaint to cross over into the 20th Congress.
Senate Majority Leader Francis Tolentino also argued that if the trial does not start now, it would be “functionally dismissed.”
Accountability
Tamase disagreed with Tolentino’s point, saying “it’s not for them (in the 19th Congress) to decide, that’s for the 20th Congress to decide.”
“At the same time, it’s difficult to consider the arguments that a change in the Senate will result in the automatic dismissal of the complaint because that makes impeachment subject to very tight timelines, which is not the intent of the Constitution,” he added.
“The Philippine impeachment practice really places an importance on accountability. It’s an opportunity for … the public to view and make their own decisions on the evidence. And therefore, if the change in Congress is being used as an excuse to not proceed with that function of the Senate, then it does circumvent the accountability reading of the Constitution,” he explained.
For Tamase, the Senate has already “ran out of excuses” not to start the trial “forthwith” (in accordance with the 1987 Constitution) last Monday, when the 19th Congress resumed session for the last time before it adjourns sine die on June 13.
“If that ‘forthwith proceed’ has any meaning left in the Constitution, the Senate should have started the trial on Monday and it was their duty to start on Monday. But I hesitate to say that Escudero violated the Constitution because ultimately it’s the Senate that is accountable to the people to start impeachment right away. It’s an institutional responsibility.”
Erosion of mandate
The Senate’s overreliance on the Supreme Court to ultimately decide what to do with impeachment—a power vested solely onto Congress—erodes its constitutional mandate, he added.
“It’s dangerous because it makes it look [as if] the Supreme Court is the only body that can enforce accountability. And that’s not how our Constitution is designed,” he said.
The high court has used its power to intervene in impeachment cases very sparingly because it recognizes the high prerogative of the Senate when it comes to impeachment matters, he added. —WITH REPORTS FROM JEANNETTE I. ANDRADE AND DEMPSEY REYES
