‘Read the rules’: Solons told after Marcoleta’s impeachment query

MANILA, Philippines — Sagip party-list Rep. Paolo Henry Marcoleta’s query about the House impeachment proceedings prompted Rep. Joel Chua to remind all panel members and non-members to read the rules to avoid confusion. 

Marcoleta posed a question on Wednesday shortly before the House committee on justice declared the impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte sufficient in grounds.

READ: House panel finds grounds for Duterte’s impeachment sufficient

This determination came after the panel deemed the Duterte impeachment complaints as sufficient in form and substance. 

However, Marcoleta noted that he had never heard of a rule pertaining to “sufficiency of grounds” when he witnessed the impeachment proceedings of a president, a chief justice, and an Ombudsman, when he served as a House chief of staff.

“I have not yet heard any talks about ‘sufficiency in grounds.’ What I usually hear is ‘sufficiency in form and substance.’ This seems to be the first time I’ve heard this new ‘sufficiency in grounds’ rule. Could you please clarify?” Marcoleta asked panel chair Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro.

Luistro responded by reading the Section 7 pertaining to the submission of evidence and memoranda stating: “After receipt of the pleadings, affidavits and counter-affidavits and relevant documents provided for in Section 6, or the expiration of the time within which they may be filed, the Committee shall determine whether the complaint alleges sufficient grounds for impeachment.”

Marcoleta maintained that the sufficiency in grounds is “new” to him, but Luistro noted that it has been part of previous rules that were used during the past impeachment complaints.

Furthermore, Marcoleta questioned the sequence in which the sufficiency in form, substance, and grounds was conducted.

“This clarification is important to ensure that our process remains faithful to our own rules and to avoid any perception that the committee is overstepping or conflating different stages of the proceedings,” Marcoleta said, to which Luistro reiterated that the proceeding was at the third step, that is, the sufficiency of grounds.

“Madam, shouldn’t we have first determined the sufficiency in grounds before voting on the sufficiency in form and substance?” Marcoleta then asked, and, to address his concern, Luistro asked the secretariat to provide a copy of the rules of impeachment.

“Kindly look into the copy of the rules of impeachment, because everything that I am saying is strictly consistent with the provision of the rules,” Luistro said. 

Marcoleta said: “I will go check, Madam Chair, thank you.”

This exchange prompted Manila Rep. Joel Chua to issue a reminder. 

“I encourage all members and non-members to read the rules so that we do not get confused and to avoid questions that are already clear in our rules.”

Under the House Rules of the 19th Congress, which the 20th Congress adopted — particularly the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings — five steps must be observed, namely: filing of complaints and referral to the committee on justice; determination of sufficiency in form and substance; determination of sufficiency in grounds; hearing the presentation of evidence, memoranda, and witnesses; and crafting of the report and recommendation.

Two of the four complaints remain under the jurisdiction of the committee on justice: the first was set aside for allegedly violating the one-year bar rule, while the second was withdrawn by its petitioners./coa