Supreme Court reiterates: Impeachment decision immediately executory

MANILA, Philippines – On the eve of supposed Senate voting on Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, the Supreme Court (SC) sent a signal to its co-equal branches, reiterating that its ruling on impeachment is immediately executory.

“In a 13-0-2 Decision, with the Justices present voting unanimously, and Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa inhibiting and Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh on leave, the SC En Banc ruled that the impeachment complaint was void for violating the one-year ban and due process requirements. This Decision is immediately executory,” the SC said in a press briefer on Tuesday, August 5.

The High Court made the remarks in its briefer on the House of Representative and other petitioners’ motions for reconsideration (MR) that assailed the SC’s 97-page decision. The SC asked Duterte and the Mindanaon lawyers to file their comments on the appeal within 10 days.

SC spokesperson Camille Sue Mae Ting answered in the affirmative when asked if the filed MRs had no effect to the July 25 decision.

Based on the High Court’s decision, the Articles of Impeachment were unconstitutional because it violated the one-year bar rule or the protection that prohibits impeachment proceedings from being initiated against an impeachable official more than once in a year, and on the grounds of due process.

The decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said the Articles of Impeachment were void ab initio (void from the beginning) and that the Senate never acquired jurisdiction over the case.

The Senate earlier announced that it might hold a voting on August 6 to decide on the impeachment trial’s fate. Two scenarios could happen: the Senate will honor the ruling and suspend the trial, or the upper chamber deviates from the decision and then proceeds to try the Vice President.

Some constitutional experts said there are precedents or past cases where the Senate defied its co-equal branches, even the president. Other arguments include the upper chamber being the office with the sole mandate to try and decide cases.

Preserve the proceedings

On Tuesday, August 5, group of lawyers, academics, and citizens led by former Supreme Court (SC) justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio Morales turned to the SC to ask it to preserve the status quo in the proceedings on Duterte’s impeachment trial.

“Ibig sabihin na parang hinay-hinay muna, stop-stop muna. ‘Di ba status quo? ‘Pag sinabi status quo medyo stop muna tayo and pag-aralan, suriin nang mabuti. Hindi naman masama na tingnan at balikan (This means the proceedings should stay as is, stopped for the mean time. Status quo means let’s take a pause and carefully study the issues. It’s not unreasonable to review and look back on the case),” 1Sambayan coalition convener and lawyer Howard Calleja told reporters.

“Movants-Intervenors request the issuance of a Status Quo Ante order to prevent the Senate of the Philippines from taking concrete action such as to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment in light of the unresolved constitutional issues before the SC, emphasizing that the resolution of the same ‘lies in adherence to, not departure from, the Constitution,’” 1Sambayan said.

A status quo ante order, if granted, may prevent the Senate from further acting on the proceedings.

“That’s why precisely we are knocking on the Senate na sana pakinggan muna itong mga issues, let us flesh out all the issues bago tayong magdesisyon kung i-dismiss or whatever ang gagawin natin (That’s why precisely we are knocking on the Senate to finalize the issues first, let us flesh out all the issues before we decide to dismiss the case or whatever they’ll do),” Calleja explained.

More reliefs

Apart from the status quo ante order, the petitioners also asked the SC to allow them to become a party to the case through a motion for intervention. Other petitioners include 1987 Constitution framer Christian Monsod, former Commission on Audit commissioner Heidi Mendoza, University of the Philippines (UP) professors Cielo Magno and Dante Gatmaytan, and Calleja, among others.

“The inclusion of intervenors, if allowed by the Court, might infuse new arguments dito sa issue na ito (in the issue). So it could beef up the arguments but on the other hand intervention is within the discretion of the Supreme Court,” Gatmaytan, a constitutional law professor at UP College of Law, told Rappler in an earlier interview.

For Calleja, their motion for intervention also aims to show that the Filipino citizens are also at stake in the impeachment trial.

“It’s not between the House, the Senate, or the Supreme Court, but it’s actually [about] the Filipino people. So we’re putting it to a human factor, we’re putting it lower on daily lives of the people because the impeachment affects the daily lives of our people,” the 1Sambayan convener said in a mix of Filipino and English.

The petitioners also urged the SC to hold oral arguments on the case to allow a “more extensive explanation” of the arguments in the proceedings.

Unlike in other petitions, the SC relied on submissions in deciding on the petitions challenging Duterte’s impeachment. This was not unusual as the SC may decide with or without oral arguments, but the petitioners said the setting of oral arguments would help the SC ponder on the impeachment rules stated in the 1987 Constitution.

‘Violations’

In their petition, the coalition also asked for the reconsideration of the SC’s decision on the trial. As earlier argued, 1Sambayan said the new requirements to ensure due process in the case were contrary to the “constitutionally enshrined power of the Congress to promulgate its own rules on impeachment.”

“Movants-Intervenors argue that there was violation of due process when the SC abandoned the ruling in Francisco, Jr., et al. vs. House of Representatives, et al. by retroactively implementing a new set of rules for filing impeachment cases,” the coalition said.

In the latest ruling, the SC said the one-year bar rule should be reckoned “from the initiation of the impeachment complaint if unacted upon or when it is dismissed if it has been partially acted upon.” However, in the Francisco ruling, a complaint is initiated when it was filed with the House and was referred to the justice committee.

Carpio Morales, who penned the Francisco ruling, earlier told Rappler that “initiation” means filing of complaint and referral to justice committee — a definition that came from constitutional framers, former justice Florenz Regalado and Father Joaquin Bernas, SJ. (READ: Why critics say SC impeachment ruling ‘grossly unfair’ and ‘violates Constitution’)

Another group, the Philippine Bar Association (PBA), also expressed “serious concerns” over the SC decision, saying that it echoes the belief “that the Decision alters fundamental principles of constitutional law and accountability of public officers.”

“On the nature of Impeachment, Congress, as the People’s agents, must remain free from undue interference in carrying out their duties. Where the Constitution entrusted a power ‘solely’ to one Branch, it intended it to remain there. No Branch is allowed to alter – directly or indirectly – what the text of the Constitution itself establishes,” the PBA said. – Rappler.com