Lawmaker and former Justice chief Leila de Lima found her foot in her mouth immediately after the Supreme Court ruled that the impeachment case against Vice-president Sara Duterte-Carpio is unconstitutional.
For this, the former senator had to apologize publicly.
“I regret and most humbly apologize to the Supreme Court for characterizing the impeachment decision as ex-parte (from one party),” De Lima, now the representative of Mamamayang Liberal (ML) party-list group, said a day later.
De Lima explained she later found out that the House’s comments in the two impeachment petitions were indeed considered by the Court. “There is no excuse for this mistake and I bear full responsibility for the same,” she said.
De Lima, who was earlier nominated as an impeachment prosecutor of the House, instantly slammed the High Court ruling on Friday, calling it “not only unprecedented; it is procedurally questionable.”
“How was the final decision made without a formal reply from the respondent House? Even traffic violators are given more due process than what was accorded here,” the dismayed De Lima said. “The decision is basically an ex-parte decision, a very prohibited action among judges when the rules require the parties to be given the opportunity to be heard first.”
Within 24 hours, though, De Lima regretted making the harsh statement.
“That portion of my statement saying the House was not given an opportunity to comment on the impeachment petitions was grossly ill-advised as it was based on patently wrong information.”
This developed as the Partido Demokratiko Pilipino (PDP) spokesperson on impeachment matters warned critics of the Supreme Court of legal action.
“The use of intemperate and opprobrious language cannot be countenanced, lest our institutions be undermined,” PDP spokesperson Ferdinand Topacio said in a statement.
PDP is a political party supporting Vice-president Duterte-Carpio.
“The PDP is ready to use its resources against those engaging in scurrilous attacks against the High Court to hold them to account for their words,” added Topacio, a lawyer. “This is to protect and preserve the faith and dignity of the Supreme Court.”
In ruling that the impeachment case as unconstitutional, the High Court noted that the House of Representatives violated the constitutional ruling of “one impeachment per year” against impeachable officials.
The court said there were four impeachment complaints filed against Duterte and the first three were effectively dismissed. “Therefore, the fourth complaint, endorsed by over one-third of the House, was barred by the one-year rule,” the ruling signed by 13 of the 15 SC justices concluded. Two justices did not participate in the voting.
While clarifying that the decision did not absolve the Vice-president of the charges, the High Court said that the House did not observe due process in all the stages of the case.
The House said it will file a Motion for Reconsideration at the Supreme Court.
House spokesperson and lawyer Princess Abante said the decision was based on factual errors and findings that contradict the chamber’s official records.
She added the House also disputes the High Court’s interpretation of the one-year rule, arguing that the earlier complaints were archived before the fourth was endorsed.
Abante emphasized that the Court imposed new due process requirements not found in the Constitution or House rules.
