Presidential Legal Counsel and 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 — There are two ways to break the current deadlock over Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, and one of it is just simply moving forward with the proceedings, Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile said on Tuesday.
Enrile, in an exclusive interview with INQUIRER.net said that the delay in the impeachment proceedings can be addressed if parties go to the Supreme Court (SC) to seek clarification, or if the Senate sets aside alleged issues and just conducts the trial.
According to Enrile, who was the Senate President when the Senate sat as an impeachment court for the trial of then Chief Justice Renato Corona, he prefers the latter as there is already a precedent that articles of impeachment sent by the House of Representatives are presumed legal and regular.
“The trouble with that is that the Congress of the Philippines will put the Constitution in a very peculiar situation, they are now locked into an impasse. Now, who can unravel that? Either you go to the Supreme Court if there’s a case and get an interpretation,” he said.
“But to me there’s no need, because we have a precedent of Erap (former president Joseph Estrada) and Corona’s impeachment,” he added.
Duterte was impeached last February 5, after 215 lawmakers filed and signed a verified impeachment complaint against her.
The articles of impeachment were immediately sent to the Senate as the Article XI, Section 3(4) of the 1987 Constitution states that a trial should proceed forthwith if one-thirds of House members file the complaint.
As one-third of 306 House members is 102, the requirement was fulfilled.
However, trial did not start as the articles were not sent to the Senate plenary before session adjourned for the election season break.
And when the proceedings were supposed to start last June 3, the Senate eventually approved a motion to remand the articles back to the House of Representatives, due to alleged constitutional infirmities.
The House prosecution team, however, contended that one of the Senate’s requests — a certification from the 20th Congress that they will pursue the impeachment — cannot be complied now.
According to Enrile, there might be a dilemma if the Senate insists on the remand of the articles. However, he believes that the Senate can continue trial instead.
“Well, let it continue. Did the House accept the remanding of the impeachment case? That is the dilemma. But my opinion is that it continues,” he said.
“The only two ways that I can see would be for the Supreme Court to make an interpretation which will become a part of our jurisprudence and in turn becomes the law of the land, to define and clarify that portion of the Constitution,” he noted.
“The second one is to amend the Constitution. Some people think that this is a very light problem for the country. No sir, this is a very dangerous situation right now. Because if there is an impasse, the Senate cannot command the House to do anything.”
Earlier, Enrile questioned whether the Senate’s rules on impeachment have changed, noting that when he was at the chamber, they quickly tackled articles of impeachment sent to them — in accordance with 1987 Constitution provisions.
“The House did its function, they conducted hearings, they found something wrong, you may not agree with them, but they found that, and they submitted it to the Senate for resolution. The Senate is supposed to do its job with reasonable speed, for the Constitution says forthwith. Anybody can understand that English (word), and they did not do it, they tarried, they dilly-dallied,” Enrile said.
“Worse, they turned it back to the House and commanded the House which is improper and unparliamentary to do something that they have done. You must give a presumption of regularity to the other house, you cannot demand or command the other house which is your co-equal,” he added.
Enrile, who also participated in the impeachment trial of former president Estrada as a senator-judge — said that the delay in the impeachment proceedings and the remand of articles is without precedence.
Last June 10, 18 senator-judges voted in favor of a motion introduced by Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano, which effectively sends back the articles of impeachment back to the House of Representatives.
With the remand, the prosecution team announced that they will file a motion to seek clarification from the Senate regarding its decision to send back the articles of impeachment.
Until their questions are addressed, prosecution team member and Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro said the House would defer acceptance of the returned articles.
She, however, clarified that their actions are not in defiance of the Senate order, but is just 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 within 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