San Juan City Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora. (Photo from the Facebook page of Atty. Bel Zamora)
MANILA, Philippines — The House of Representatives prosecution team has not yet forwarded to the Senate impeachment court the motion for clarification on the remanding of the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte.
The House prosecution team believes the trial should proceed regardless of whether or not they submit certifications or not.
This stance of the panel was made public by panel member and San Juan City Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora during an interview on Monday.
The lawmaker gave this response when asked if the team had already forwarded its motion to the Senate.
According to Zamora, they believe an impeachment trial can “proceed independently” as there are no provisions in the 1987 Constitution regarding the sending back of articles that the House had submitted.
She noted that the articles themselves are a certification that the impeachment was above board.
“We have not submitted the motion for clarification,” Zamora told reporters at the Batasang Pambansa complex in Quezon City.
“We have to remember that the proceedings can proceed independently of these requirements made by the Senate,” she maintained.
“No provision in our Constitution allows the return of the articles to Congress; that they can remand the articles; and there is no requirement for us to file a certification,” she explained.
“I want to inform everyone that Congress’ decision to issue the Articles of Impeachment last February is already a certification in itself that we complied with the requirements of the Constitution and of the House of Representatives,” Zamora said.
She went on to say “that our transmittal is complete, and that already means that we complied with the one-third signature requirement, and that we complied with a one-year (prohibition) period.”
READ: Senate votes to send Duterte impeachment back toHouse
On the question whether or not the articles are stepping on the jurisdiction of the 20th Congress, Zamora said this is impossible to comply with since lawmakers of the 20th Congress have not yet assumed office.
“Further, the second requirement that our impeachment court is asking cannot be fulfilled by the Congress now because this is a directive addressed to the 20th Congress, which is not yet in existence at the moment,” she said.
After the Senate’s remand of the articles, the prosecution team announced that they will file a motion to seek clarification from the Senate on its decision to remand the articles.
Until their questions are addressed, the prosecution team member and Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro said the House would defer the acceptance of the returned articles.
She, however, clarified that their actions are not in defiance of the Senate order, but it is just a desire to clarify possible issues.
READ: House to seek clarity on Senate’s remand before receiving case
One-year prohibition
Zamora also thinks the House complied with the Constitution’s provisions limiting the tackling of impeachment complaints to only one per year.
Under Article XI, Section 3 (5) of the 1987 Constitution, “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”
According to Zamora, the House rules also state that the speaker has 10 session days from the receipt of the complaints to include the raps in the Order of Business.
Since February 5 — the date of Duterte’s impeachment through the fourth complaint — was the 10th session day, Zamora said both provisions have been complied with.
“What is stated in our Constitution is that the House of Representatives has […] 10 session days within which to calendar these impeachment complaints in the calendar of business of the House,” she said.
“So if we count 10 session days – these are not calendar days, these are session days – February 5 will be within the 10 session days. It is actually the 10th session day,” Zamora computed.
“That’s why the three impeachment complaints have been calendared last February 5, in accordance with the requirement of our Constitution,” she pointed out.
Zamora said the first three complaints filed in December 2024 have already been archived, and the fourth complaint, which was a consolidation of the three, was adopted.
No one from the first three complainants, Zamora noted, opposed the consolidation.
“That’s why when the three impeachment complaints were calendared in the Order of Business, because we have a fourth impeachment complaint which was supported by 215 congressmen, the three initial complaints were archived,” she recalled.
“And we followed the rules of the House of Representatives and, of course, the Constitution,” she concluded. /apl