The unexpected Supreme Court (SC) ruling that declared the impeachment case filed by the House of Representatives against Vice-president Sara Duterte as unconstitutional is wrong.
So says three retired SC justices, one of them a former Chief Justice (CJ).
Retired CJ Artemio Panganiban, along with former associate justices Antonio Carpio and Adolf Azcuna cited several reasons why the declaration of the House’s case as being unconstitutional were invalid.
For one, when the Senate acts as impeachment tribunal, it becomes co-equal to the SC. As such, one cannot dictate to the other if it can proceed with the trial or not.
(Note: Congress and the SC have always been co-equal branches, along with the executive branch but it is the high court that interprets the law when legal questions arise.)
In a unanimous decision released last week, the current SC voided the impeachment of VP Duterte, based on technicalities and not on the perceived strengths or weaknesses of the charges.
The high tribunal found the complaint unconstitutional for violating the one-year ban and lacking due process, among others.
Pangilinan said the House can still file a motion for reconsideration.
He said that if he was still chief justice, he would have asked for oral arguments before promulgating any decision.
If the court had patiently heard oral arguments on less important cases such as recognition of foreign divorces, “why not on this monumental case?” Pangilinan said.
He added that the SC should have accorded respect to a co-equal branch of the government.
For his part, Carpio said the House had fully complied with the constitutional requirements, even as he warned the judiciary of overstepping its bounds.
In his view, Carpio said the House had “strictly followed the handling of the impeachment complaints and their subsequent endorsement to the Senate.
Carpio also commented on the technicalities cited by the SC, stating that the House had followed the charter’s provision that the impeachment complaints had been included in the House’s Order of Business within the prescribed 10-working day period.
Azcuna, meanwhile, pointed out that the SC had used a new interpretation of what it meant to “initiate” an impeachment complaint.
He cited a 2003 case – Francisco v House of Representatives – wherein a complaint is only deemed initiated when it is referred to the House committee on Justice.
Said Azcuna: “The new definition, however, would now cover a situation where the complaints 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.’”
He added that the House, relying on the old definition, acted within its rights when it adopted the fourth complaint and transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate. It would not be fair to retroactively apply the court’s new interpretation, Azcuna said.
At the same time, a human rights lawyer’s group warned that the SC ruling could distort constitutional safeguards and weaken accountability mechanisms for high officials. It also said that the decision was a “misreading of the impeachment timeline and a misapplication of the Constitution.”
The 97-page SC ruling had struck down the impeachment complaint endorsed by almost two-thirds of House lawmakers, far beyond the minimum number needed to forward a case or cases to the Senate.
The SC said the House had violated the one-year ban on initiating impeachment complaints. It faulted the House for failing to provide VP Duterte with the articles of impeachment or a chance to respond before sending the case to the Senate.
In a related development, several senators including Tito Sotto, Bam Aquino, and Ping Lacson opined that the SC decision was not binding on the Senate sitting as impeachment court. As such, they said the Senate should proceed with the trial of VP Duterte.
