Senate’s remand of impeachment articles seems to block democracy – Chua
Senator – judges finally get to don their judges’ robes that have been ready since March and take their oath as members of the impeachment court on Tuesday, with Senate President Francis “Chiz’’ Escudero serving as presiding officer. (INQUIRER / NIÑO JESUS ORBETA)
MANILA, Philippines — House of Representatives prosecution team member and Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua lamented the Senate’s decision to remand the impeachment articles, saying this move seems to obstruct the rule of law and democracy in the country.
In an ambush interview on Wednesday, before the ecumenical prayer for the prosecutors was held, Chua said they were saddened by developments in the Senate and that they would have a meeting to discuss their next step.
“As of now, we have not discussed our next steps, but it is saddening because what the Senate did was a clear violation of our Constitution,” Chua said in Filipino.
“It’s saddening because the rules on impeachment, which they themselves crafted, were clear that they should act impartially or neutrally. But now it seems they are blocking democracy in the country,” he added.
Chua echoed concerns raised by human rights lawyer Chel Diokno, who questioned whether judges are allowed to make motions, noting that there are no existing mechanisms allowing such actions.
“It is not the mandate of senators to file motions and decide on these kinds of motions, and in fact this is the duty of the defense, the counsel of the defense panel,” Chua said.
“That’s why it seems they are lawyering for our vice president,” he added.
On Tuesday evening, 18 senator-judges voted in favor of the motion introduced by Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano, which sent back the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte to the House of Representatives to ensure that constitutional safeguards and issues of jurisdiction were not violated.
The decision to remand the articles stemmed from a motion made by Senator-Judge Ronald dela Rosa, which was amended by Cayetano.
Only five members of the 23-person impeachment court opposed the motion.
READ: Senate votes to send Duterte impeachment back to House
The prosecution team was originally scheduled to leave for the Senate after the ecumenical prayer scheduled at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, and an 11:00 a.m. press briefing.
But with the developments, the panel decided to meet instead to discuss the issue.
Diokno, in a separate interview, cautioned the Senate that judges are not allowed to initiate motions during a court setup, and instead are only allowed to receive and respond to them.
Diokno believes a question that may be raised is why the Senate, convened as an impeachment court, acts on the motion.
READ: Diokno to Senate: Judges not allowed to make motions
Under the Philippine judicial system, both the prosecutor and the defense parties are allowed to make different motions that the court would deliberate on.
For example, an accused can file a motion for leave of court to act on a bail petition or a demurrer to evidence, to which the court will respond by asking the prosecution panel to respond within a specific number of days.
At the end of the trial, a losing party may also file a motion for reconsideration to formally ask the court to review its decision, which will result in the court also asking the opposing side to comment.
However, courts, justices, and judges do not issue motions and instead respond to motions through resolutions and orders.
Several parties part of the impeachment complaints called out the Senate for allegedly succumbing to cowardice with the remand of the articles.
In a statement on early Wednesday morning, former senator and incoming Mamamayang Liberal party-list Rep. Leila de Lima said that the Senate had the chance to let the people’s voices be heard, but it allegedly succumbed to “cowardice.”
Makabayan bloc lawmakers, comprising ACT Teachers party-list Rep. France Castro, Gabriela party-list Rep. Arlene Brosas, and Kabataan party-list Rep. Raoul Manuel, believe the Senate’s move is unconstitutional because no provision in the Constitution allows for the return of the articles.
