Enrile: It seems Sara Duterte doesn’t want to face impeachment trial

Former Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile talks to INQURER.net about issues surrounding the impeachment case of Vice President Sara Duterte. —Photo by Ryan Leagogo | INQUIRER.net

MANILA, Philippines — The delays in the impeachment proceedings, along with petitions from her camp against the complaint lodged against her, seem to indicate that Vice President Sara Duterte does not want to face trial, former Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, now the chief presidential legal counsel, said on Tuesday.

In an exclusive interview conducted by INQUIRER.net on Tuesday, Enrile — a veteran of two impeachment proceedings — was asked what he thinks of the delay in the impeachment proceedings, as the Senate sitting as an impeachment court has sought certifications from the House regarding constitutionality issues.

According to Enrile, this may reflect the sentiment of the vice president and even the Senate towards the trial.

“Well, frankly, I think there is a semblance — this is my opinion — that Sara does not want to face an impeachment trial. That is my opinion,” Enrile, who was the presiding judge during the impeachment trial of former Chief Justice Renato Corona, said.

READ: Enrile: Senator-judges changed stance before, they can do it again

“I’m sure the Filipino people who have a little understanding of these things will wonder why things are happening this way. I’m sorry to say this, but even I was a little bit taken [aback] by the events that transpired. It was very evident that there is a desire to prevent the trial from going through,” he added.

Misunderstanding the Constitution

Enrile said that there might have been a misunderstanding in the interpretation of the Constitution’s provisions regarding impeachment, as he believes that once the Senate receives the articles of impeachment, the trial must proceed.

Under Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution, a verified impeachment complaint filed by “at least one-third of all the Members of the House” will constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and “trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”

With 215 House of Representatives lawmakers filing and signing a verified complaint last February 5, the one-third requirement was easily satisfied as a third of 306 House members is 102.

READ: Did they change rules? Enrile says ‘forthwith’ easy to understand

“I think there is some misunderstanding along the way, I do not know why […] Once an impeachment is filed with the Senate, we have no other choice except to hear, to try, and decide it.  And once it is within the jurisdiction of the Senate, it has to discharge its duty to judge the case. It’s sui generis,” he noted.

Enrile gave senator-judges this counsel: “With due respect to them, my first advice is to keep quiet, and then go to the session hall during their trial, sit down and listen to the proceeding, listen to the presentation of evidence. The first lawyer and the prosecution may tangle with each other, but never interfere unless you want to ask a clarificatory question to understand the meaning of the evidence that is being presented.”

Articles of impeachment issues

After Duterte was impeached last February 5, the House forwarded the articles of impeachment to the Senate. The trial did not start immediately, however, as the articles were not taken up during the Senate plenary session before the 19th Congress adjourned its session for the election break.

February 5 was the last session day of the Senate and the House.

Last May 23, Senate President Francis Escudero sent a letter to House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez inviting the House prosecution panel to the Senate plenary on June 2 to present the articles of impeachment.

Escudero said back then that on June 3, the next day, the Senate would convene as an impeachment court.

However, last Thursday, Escudero sent another letter to Romualdez informing him that the reading of the articles would be rescheduled to June 11.

READ: Presentation of impeachment articles vs Sara Duterte moved to June 11

But even before the prosecution team got to visit the Senate, there were concerns that a Senate trial on Duterte’s impeachment might not push through after draft Senate resolutions seeking the dismissal of the articles were floated.

READ: Lacson: Draft reso to junk impeach bid vs Sara Duterte circulating

After several concerns about whether the trial would proceed, the Senate convened as an impeachment court last June 10. But on the same day, 18 senator-judges voted in favor of a motion introduced by Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano, which effectively sends back the articles of impeachment to the House.

With the remand, the prosecution team announced that they would file a motion to seek clarification from the Senate regarding its decision to send back the articles of impeachment.

Until their questions are addressed, a prosecution team member, Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro, said the House would defer acceptance of the returned articles. She clarified, however, that their actions were not in defiance of the Senate order, but were borne out of a desire to clarify possible issues.

READ: House to seek clarity on Senate’s remand before receiving case

Duterte’s impeachment was hinged on different issues, like allegations of confidential fund misuse in her offices, which were uncovered during the hearing of the House committee on good government and public accountability, and threats to have President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and Romualdez assassinated.

READ: House impeaches VP Sara Duterte, fast-tracking transmittal to Senate

The following are the articles of impeachment sent by the House:

• Article I: Betrayal of public trust, commission of high crimes due to her threats to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez
• Article II: Betrayal of public trust and graft and corruption due to misuse of CFs within the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Office of the Vice President (OVP)
• Article III: Betrayal of public trust and bribery within the DepEd
• Article IV: Violation of the 1987 Constitution and betrayal of public trust due to unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets
• Article V: Commission of high crimes, due to involvement in extrajudicial killings in the drug war
• Article VI: Betrayal of public trust due to alleged destabilization plots and high crimes of sedition and insurrection
• Article VII: Betrayal of acts due to her unbecoming conduct as Vice President

/atm