Retired SC justices, coalition also call for oral arguments
RETIRED Supreme Court justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio Morales and other members of the 1Sambayan Coalition yesterday asked the Supreme Court to issue a status quo ante order (SQAO) to stop the Senate from further acting on the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte.
They also asked the High Court to hold oral arguments on the case.
The petition was filed a day before senators were set to debate on whether they will comply with the July 25 SC decision that declared the impeachment complaint unconstitutional, and a day after the House of Representatives filed a motion for reconsideration to the ruling.
“Thus, to fully ventilate the arguments of the parties, including those of movant-intervenors, it is judicially wise for this Honorable Court to grant a status quo ante order that prevents the Senate of the Philippines from taking concrete action such as to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment considering the pending constitutional issues that have yet to be resolved by this Honorable Court,” the former justices and their co-petitioners said in a 52-page motion.
The SC, after Tuesday’s en banc, said in a statement that its July 25 decision is “immediately executory.” Its spokesperson, Camille Sue Mae Ting, said the decision does not preclude the filing of a motion to reverse the controversial ruling.
The House, through the Office of the Solicitor General, asked the SC on Monday to reverse its decision, as it questioned the imposition of “retroactive due process rules” in favor of Duterte. It emphasized the ruling deprived the House of its exclusive power to initiate cases of impeachment and asked the SC to allow them to intervene in the impeachment case and to admit their motion for reconsideration.
The SC meanwhile directed Duterte and lawyer Israelito Torreon to answer the House motion “within a non-extendible period of 10 days from receipt of notice.”
Reginald Tongol, spokesperson of the Senate acting as an impeachment court, said all is set for today’s debates on how the upper chamber will go about with the impeachment process after the SC decision and the House’s motion for reconsideration.
“That will proceed as scheduled and our senators have prepared for the debates wherein they will present their motions and schools of thought in the plenary,” Tongol said in Filipino, in an interview with radio dzMM.
He said a caucus last week raised several legal issues about the impeachment process, and these need to be clarified today, including whether or not the Senate will still convene as an impeachment court despite the SC decision.
He said another issue to be clarified is if the Senate will abide by the SC decision.
Lawyer Howard Calleja, who signed the petition along with Carpio and Carpio-Morales, called on the Senate to stop its planned debates today, because of pending petitions before the SC challenging the July 25 decision.
“That’s why, precisely, we are knocking on the Senate to hear all issues first. Let us thresh out all the issues before we decide if we want to dismiss or whatever decision that you will reach,” he told reporters in a message, in mixed English and Filipino.
ORAL ARGUMENTS
The petitioners said oral arguments would allow the parties to directly address any factual or legal issues that the magistrates deem relevant to resolving the case.
“Given the gravity of the constitutional issues involved, particularly the interpretation and implementation of the impeachment provisions under Article XI of the Constitution, the opportunity for clarification and elaboration through oral discourse will be invaluable to the Honorable Court,” they added.
Oral arguments, they said, promote a fuller ventilation of arguments and fosters judicial rigor.
As for their arguments seeking a reconsideration of the SC ruling, the petitioners said the decision overturned the Francisco Jr. versus House of Representatives ruling, where the High Court held that an impeachment proceeding is deemed initiated upon the filing of the impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee on Justice, or when an impeachment complaint is filed and verified by at least one-third of the membership of the House.
They added that the first three complaints against Duterte cannot be deemed to have attained the status of being “initiated,” as they were not even referred to the Committee on Justice.
“Such a rule creates a perverse incentive for an impeachable officer to inoculate himself from accountability simply by causing the filing of sham complaints, because whether the Congress acts on them, the mere filing would already trigger and consume the one-year ban, a result inconsistent with the Constitution,” they added.
The petition is the third such petition to be filed challenging the SC ruling.
The first was filed last Friday by some of those behind the first impeachment complaint against Duterte, followed by that of the House on Monday.
MORE OPPOSITION
The Philippine Bar Association has added its voice to those expressing concerns over the controversial ruling, saying the decision alters the “fundamental principles of constitutional law and accountability of public officers.”
Several groups and personalities have criticized the High Court’s decision, including the Philippine Constitution Association, retired justices such as Carpio and Renato Puno, as well as law deans, other legal luminaries and law institutions.
The PBA, in a two-page statement, said they are concerned about how the SC abandoned the time-tested doctrines laid down in previous impeachment cases.
The group said the current impeachment mechanism in the 1987 Constitution was designed to make it easier for the public to hold near-invulnerable public officials accountable. As an example, it said that instead of two-thirds, the framers of the Constitution deliberately chose a smaller number (one-third) to avoid what it said were “frustrating incidents” during martial law.
The group also said public office is not a personal right but a trust, and officials are “accountable to the people at all times.”
It also noted the importance of a stable legal system, adding that a significant and retroactive change to the public’s understanding of the Constitution on a matter of “paramount public importance” such as the impeachment case challenges the public’s belief in equality before the law and strains confidence in the country’s democratic institutions.
Last June, the PBA also issued a statement saying the text of the Constitution bears no ambiguity as it urged the Senate to proceed with the impeachment trial.
The group maintained the Senate cannot junk the case against Duterte without first conducting the required trial and cannot invoke “majority wins” to shirk or evade this constitutional duty.
‘CONCERNED CITIZEN’
About 100 individuals have filed a “concerned citizen” letter with the SC asking it to reverse its ruling and hold oral arguments on the case.
“Due to the impact of the Court’s decision, it is imperative for the Court to conduct oral arguments regarding the case, so that different perspectives about the case will be discussed,” said the letter in Filipino addressed to Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo said.
Among the over 100 signatories are former Social Welfare secretary and retired UP Diliman professor Judie Taguiwalo, UP Film Institute professor Rolando Tolentino, former Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila president Emmanuel Leyco, and Gabriela chairperson Gertrudes Libang.
“We are hoping that through the conduct of public oral arguments, the Court will be able to gain new insights to reverse its decision and to allow the Senate to do its constitutional duty by holding the impeachment trial of Vice President Duterte” it added.
David Michael San Juan, convenor of the Taumbayan Ayaw Sa Magnanakaw at Abusado Alliance Network (Tama Na), said they are hoping that through the letter, the SC will hear the voice of the ordinary citizen on the impeachment issue.
Tama Na members also staged a brief protest action in front of the SC compound to express their disagreement over the dismissal of the impeachment complaint.
Signatory Raymond Palatino, secretary general of Bayan Muna, asked the public to be vigilant and to call for a reversal of the decision.
He said Bayan Muna and other groups will stage a protest action outside the SC in the coming days to press their opposition to the ruling.
Members of Anakbayan and other youth groups also staged a protest action in front of the SC compound to challenge the ruling.
SENATE DISCUSSIONS
Tongol said another matter to be tackled today is if the impeachment court will be dissolved following the SC decision.
Tongol said it is also expected that senators will discuss the contents of the House’ motion for reconsideration, which may lead to a deferment of the vote on the impeachment process.
“Maaaring makita natin na hindi pa po bukas mamatay ang impeachment process (We may witness tomorrow that the impeachment process will not die),” he said.
Senate President Francis Escudero earlier said that the senators decided to tackle the SC decision on August 6 to give everyone enough time to go over the 97-page SC decision.
Senate minority leader Vicente Sotto III said he has read the 97-page SC decision and “I’m ready for tomorrow.”
