Carpio to Escudero: Senator-judges barred from commenting on Sara Duterte trial
From Inquirer file photos
MANILA, Philippines — Former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio has reminded members of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court that they are prohibited from making public comments on the merits of the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte.
Carpio issued the reminder following remarks by Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero, who criticized the former justice last week for speaking out on the Senate’s handling of the case.
“[T]here is a provision in the Senate rules on impeachment. It says, the presiding officer and the senator-judges shall refrain from commenting on the merits of the impeachment case. So dapat sila huwag mag-comment (So they should not be commenting),” Carpio said in a television interview aired last Tuesday.
“[T]he gag rule is there in the Senate rules. The Senate — the presiding officer, and the senator-judges — shall refrain from commenting publicly on the merits of the impeachment case.”
“Ako pwede na ako mag-comment ngayon dahil I’m a private sector already. (I can comment now because I’m already in the private sector.) I’m a private citizen,” he added.
The Senate, which convened as an impeachment court last month, voted 18-5 to return the Articles of Impeachment to the House of Representatives, following a motion filed by Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa and amended by Senator Alan Peter Cayetano.
READ: Impeachment court sends Sara Duterte case back to House
The motion sought clarification on whether the House had violated the constitutional one-year bar on multiple impeachment complaints, and whether the incoming 20th Congress would still pursue the case.
Escudero cites Gutierrez case; Carpio says it’s not the same
Escudero, who also presides over the impeachment court, previously responded to Carpio’s public criticism by pointing to the impeachment complaint filed in 2011 against then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, which the Senate dismissed without convening as an impeachment court.
READ: Sara Duterte trial: Carpio says bank records key to truth
“Hindi para sa akin na patulan si Justice Carpio, hindi ako sang-ayon sa sinasabi niya,” Escudero said in a press conference on June 25. “If we’re talking precedence ha, nasaan siya, bakit hindi siya nagreklamo noon dinismiss ng Senado yung impeachment complaint laban kay Mercy Gutierrez na hindi kino-convene ng impeachment court?”
(It’s not for me to engage with Justice Carpio. I don’t agree with what he’s saying. If we’re talking about precedent, where was he? Why didn’t he complain back then when the Senate dismissed the impeachment complaint against Mercy Gutierrez without convening the impeachment court?)
“There is that precedence done by the Senate. Hindi ko sinasabing tama ‘yun pero ginawa na ‘yun ng Senado noon. Nasaan siya, bakit hindi siya nagreklamo noon tulad ng kasing sigasig ng pagrereklamo niya ngayon? Bakit tila hindi nila maalala yung puntong iyon?” he added.
(I’m not saying it was right, but the Senate already did that before. Where was he then? Why didn’t he complain back then with the same intensity he’s showing now? Why do they seem to forget that point?)
In his response, Carpio said the two situations were not comparable. He explained that Gutierrez had resigned after the complaint was filed with the Senate, so there was no longer any need for a trial.
“Well, first of all, the situation of Gutierrez is different from the situation of Sara (Duterte) because Gutierrez resigned after the impeachment was filed with the Senate. When you resign, you’re no longer a public officer,” he said.
“So ang ginawa ng Senate, they just dismissed the case kasi wala na. (So what the Senate did was just dismiss the case.) She’s no longer a public official,” he added.
Carpio also clarified why he did not comment publicly at the time, noting that he was already a sitting justice when Gutierrez was impeached.
“I was in the Supreme Court since 2001, and as a member of the Supreme Court, I cannot be complaining because that case could reach us,” he said.
In March 2011, the House of Representatives impeached Gutierrez over allegations that she failed to act on major corruption cases involving former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. But before the Senate could begin her trial, Gutierrez resigned on April 29, 2011, prompting the Senate to drop the case.
READ: Gutierrez trial aborted: Winners and losers
“But if I were sitting in the Supreme Court now, I would not comment. Why will I comment? That’s not part of my function. That’s why when this happened during the time of Gutierrez, I did not comment,” Carpio stressed.
“And besides, [Gutierrez] resigned. In the case of Sara, she has not resigned,” he continued.
Senator-judges should not comment
Echoing Carpio’s response, constitutional law professor and lawyer Howard Calleja said the former magistrate was right to remain silent at the time due to judicial ethics, and that the same principle should apply to senator-judges today.
“Justice Carpio was a member of the Supreme Court when former Ombudsman Gutierrez was impeached. Of course, Justice Carpio did not comment because a sitting magistrate does not comment on those matters that may reach the Supreme Court,” Calleja said in a statement.
“With more reason that a senator-judge in impeachment proceedings should not comment on matters already pending before the impeachment court,” he added.
Follow how this historic trial unfolds: get the latest updates on INQUIRER.net’s special coverage: https://www.inquirer.net/446423/live-updates-minority-moves-to-initiate-sara-duterte-impeachment-trial
RELATED STORIES:
‘Not judges, but defenders’: Lawyers hit Senate’s return of Sara Duterte impeachment case
‘Whimsical, despotic, arbitrary’: Prominent lawyer slams Senate return of case vs Sara Duterte
