Enrile: Change Constitution for clarity in future impeachments

Former Senate President and now Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile

MANILA, Philippines — Amending the 1987 Constitution might be necessary to prevent confusion in future impeachment proceedings, former Senate President and now Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile said on Tuesday.

In an exclusive interview with INQUIRER.net, Enrile noted that the confusion delaying Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial could have been avoided if certain provisions from the 1935 Constitution had been retained.

The delay stemmed from questions over whether it is proper for 12 senators from the 19th Congress to proceed with the trial even as the 12 senators of the 20th Congress have yet to take their oath.

Enrile said that under the 1935 Constitution, there would always be a quorum of more than two-thirds in the Senate, as Article VI, Section 3 provides that elected senators be divided into three groups: the first group to serve for six years, the second for four years, and the third for two years.

“Now, you see, the only institution of the government that has members that remain during an election in the country is the Senate. Under the 1935 Constitution, that was also true, but the number was reduced by the 1987 Constitution, I do not know why,” Enrile said.

“Two-thirds is more than a quorum of the Senate, that was its purpose. I do not know why they removed that two-thirds and made it one-half. Nothing can function without a quorum,” he added.

Enrile noted that revered nationalist and former Senator Claro M. Recto, original author of the provision, intended it to ensure the continuous functioning of government and the presence of a deciding body regardless of what happens to the president, vice president, or the House of Representatives during an election or in the event of war.

“And in the case of war, if something happens like this, we are a country without a government. It is a very dangerous situation, I think we have to change the constitution, and restore the old two-thirds of the Senate that was written in the 1935 Constitution,” he added.

According to Enrile, the problem can either be cured with the Supreme Court interpreting the provisions in the Constitution or by amending the 1987 Constitution.

“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 a part of the law of the land to define that portion of the Constitution,” he said.

“The second one is to amend the Constitution; there’s no other way. Some people may think that this is a very light problem for the country. No sir, we are in a very dangerous situation right now, because if there is an impasse, the Senate cannot command the House to do anything, they are co-equal (branches), neither can the House command the Senate to do anything,” he added.

How Sara Duterte’s trial stalled

Duterte was impeached on February 5 after 215 lawmakers filed and signed a verified impeachment complaint against her.

The articles of impeachment were immediately transmitted to the Senate, in accordance with Article XI, Section 3(4) of the 1987 Constitution, which states that a trial should proceed forthwith if one-third of House members file the complaint.

With the House composed of 306 members, the one-third requirement—102 members—was met. However, the trial did not commence as the articles of impeachment were not brought to the Senate plenary before Congress adjourned for the election season break.

When proceedings were set to begin on June 3, the Senate instead approved a motion to remand the articles back to the House due to alleged constitutional infirmities.

The House prosecution team, however, said they would defer acceptance of the returned articles and instead file a motion seeking clarification, as one of the Senate’s requests—a certification from the 20th Congress affirming its intent to pursue the impeachment—cannot be complied with at this time.

In the same interview, Enrile expressed his belief that regardless of these actions by both the Senate and the House, the trial can still proceed.

“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.

Previously, Enrile also questioned whether the Senate’s rules on impeachment had changed, noting that during his time in the chamber, articles of impeachment were promptly addressed in accordance with the provisions of the 1987 Constitution.

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

Enrile—who served as a senator-judge in the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada and as presiding officer in the trial of former Chief Justice Renato Corona—said the delay in the Duterte impeachment proceedings and the remand of the articles are unprecedented.

Duterte’s impeachment was based on various issues, including allegations of misuse of confidential funds within her offices, which were uncovered during the hearings of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability.

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

The House transmitted the following articles of impeachment:

• 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
• 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/mcm