Escudero: Nothing ‘deeply concerning’ about remand order
SPEAKER Martin Romualdez said he is not defying an order of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, to remand the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte to the House of Representatives but defended the chamber’s move to endorse the impeachment complaint, saying it was an exercise of its constitutional duty.
Romualdez, in a speech on Wednesday night before the 19th Congress adjourned sine die, called the Senate’s remand order “deeply concerning,” and maintained the “articles were transmitted by the chamber in accordance with the Constitution and with the overwhelming support of 215 members who answered the people’s call for accountability.”
He delivered his speech just after the House deferred acceptance of the articles of impeachment following a decision of the prosecution panel to file a motion for clarification before the impeachment court.
“I rise — not in defiance — but with resolve, guided by duty, grounded in principle. The decision of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, to return the articles of impeachment is deeply concerning,” Romualdez said.
“Let me speak plainly yet with utmost respect. The House of Representatives acted not out of haste, but with deliberate care. We follow the law, we honored our mandate, and above all, we stood for what the Filipino people deserve,” he added.
While there are pending issues that the House wants the Senate to clarify, Romualdez vowed the House “shall comply with the requirements of the impeachment court, not to abandon our cause, but to ensure the process continues, because in matters of truth and accountability, the House does not back down.”
Senate President Francis Escudero yesterday dismissed Romualdez’ sentiments, saying there is nothing “deeply concerning” about returning the impeachment complaint to the House.
He said the remand order was agreed on by a majority of the senators sitting as judges of the impeachment court, and the decision should be respected and complied with by the House, in the same way that Duterte should respect and abide by the summons issued by the impeachment court on Wednesday.
The Philippine Constitution Association (PhilConsa), meanwhile, called out the decision of the Senate, saying it raises serious constitutional concerns and challenges the integrity of the impeachment process.
In a statement issued yesterday for the group, PhilConsa chair retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno said the decision to remand the case to the House could undermine the principle that public office is a public trust.
“This action raises grave constitutional questions and challenges the integrity of the impeachment process. PhilConsa warns that it may constitute grave abuse of discretion and risks undermining the most fundamental principle of our constitutional democracy: that public office is a public trust,” Puno said.
“The accountability of Public Officials cannot be overstressed — and must never be evaded through procedural artifice,” he added.
The Senate convened the impeachment court on Tuesday, around four months after the impeachment articles were transmitted to the Senate on February 5. But hours later, the senators, who will act as impeachment judges, voted to remand the articles to the House.
CLARIFICATION
The House on Wednesday formally deferred the acceptance of articles of impeachment. The House also approved House Resolution No. 2346 certifying that the impeachment proceedings initiated against Duterte fully complied with Article XI, Sec. 3 of the Constitution.
A copy of the resolution is yet to be sent to the Senate, pending formal acceptance of the remanded articles.
The prosecution panel intends to file a motion asking the impeachment court to clarify its order for the House to issue a certification that the filing of the complaint was “not constitutionally infirm” and did not violate the constitutional one-year ban on the filing of more than one impeachment complaint.
Congressmen-prosecutors want to be clarified as to why the court still needs a certification from the House when it has already done its constitutional duty of initiating an impeachment complaint, which they believe did not violate the one-year ban on filing more than one impeachment complaint since only one complaint was initiated by the House.
The prosecution has also raised the need for the court to clarify its order asking the House if it still wants to proceed with the trial in the incoming 20th Congress, as the 19th Congress will end on June 30, saying it is impossible to comply with such order when the 20th Congress has yet to be convened.
San Juan City Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora, a member of the 11-man prosecution panel, said their team has yet to discuss when the certification will be transmitted to the Senate following the adoption of HR No. 2346.
“It was decided by the House leadership that the secretary general can issue the certification, maybe for everyone’s appeasement. But, it does not necessarily mean that we will transmit such certification to the Senate,” she told reporters.
By seeking clarification, Zamora said, the House is sending a message that it is following the rules and the Constitution “and we are wondering why they (impeachment court) issued such resolution.”
Zamora said the prosecution maintains its stand that the impeachment court has no power to return the impeachment articles to the House, stressing that the Constitution clearly states that after the complaint is transmitted to the Senate, “trial should proceed forthwith.”
‘GUARDIAN OF TRUST’
Romualdez said that by exercising its power to impeach the vice president, the House showed that it is “not only the voice of the people, it’s a guardian of their trust when allegations arise that threaten public confidence in our institutions.”
“Our duty is clear — to seek the truth, to uphold transparency, and to demand accountability without fear, without favor,” he said. “This is not a political exercise, this is our constitutional duty, that is why we will continue to move forward respectfully, but resolutely.”
“We act not for ourselves but for the nation, for every Filipino who hopes for clean, honest governance. For every citizen who still believes that public office is public trust. Let history be a witness: the House of the people stood firm not in our position, but in conviction. In this House, we did not falter, we stood firm, because that is what the people deserve,” Romualdez added.
SUPREME COURT
Escudero took exception to the allegation of Rep. Joel Chua that it is unconstitutional to return the impeachment articles to the House, saying only the Supreme Court can determine its constitutionality.
“It is provided in the rules of court that it is `sui generis.’ Sui generis means it’s a class of its own. The impeachment court can do what it likes but will be voted upon by the members. And if anyone disagrees, they can elevate the matter to the Supreme Court. It is not the opinion of one or two congressmen, or three senators that it is unconstitutional because it will be automatically be assumed that it is constitutional. Only the Supreme Court can rule if is unconstitutional or otherwise,” he said in mixed Filipino and English.
He reminded the House prosecution team that all communications with regard to the impeachment process must be coursed through the impeachment court.
ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISM
Puno, in the PhilConsa statement, said what is at stake in the impeachment process is not merely Duterte’s fate, but more the integrity of the 1987 Constitution.
“Impeachment is the people’s mechanism to enforce accountability of public officials. It must not be thwarted by procedural invention or partisan maneuver,” Puno said.
“Once the Senate is clothed with jurisdiction as an impeachment court upon receipt of the articles of impeachment, that jurisdiction cannot be lost or suspended by mere procedural acts. It remains until final resolution or dismissal by the Court itself,” he added.
Puno stressed that the principle of continuing jurisdiction applies with full force to the impeachment court — a doctrine, he added, that is reinforced by established practice, including the Clinton impeachment trial before the US Senate, whose model the country’s impeachment process follows.
Puno called on the Senate to uphold its constitutional duty and proceed with the impeachment trial in accordance with the Constitution and the rule of law.
“Any act or device that circumvents this duty gravely imperils our democratic institutions. The Filipino people are watching. The Constitution commands it,” he said, adding, “Circumlocutory compliance with the Constitution destroys the rule of law which is the bedrock of democracy.” – With Ashzel Hachero
