14 hours ago
1
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
MANILA, Philippines — Allies of Vice President Sara Dutere lauded the Supreme Court decision declaring as unconstitutional the impeachment complaint against her.
Sen. Bong Go urged his colleagues to respect the decision, as some of them want the trial to push through in defiance of the high court’s order.
“We must respect and abide by the decision of the Supreme Court, as the final arbiter on legal issues, barring the current impeachment proceedings on the grounds of due process,” Go said.
He said the decision stressed the need for due process even for an impeached official.
“Justice delayed is justice denied. And justice conducted the wrong way is no justice at all. No place for shortcut,” Go said.
Sen. Ronald dela Rosa repeated the remarks that he made in his manifestation during the first and only session day of the impeachment trial, when he said he was “guided by the Holy Spirit” in defending the move to dismiss the case outright.
“When I moved for the dismissal of the impeachment complaint vs VP Sara, I was guided by the Holy Spirit. When the SC ruled it as unconstitutional, I’m sure they were guided also by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit defeated the forces of evil! Hallelujah!” Dela Rosa said.
Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri said he was alarmed by some of his colleagues still wanting to push through with the trial.
The Senate is risking a constitutional crisis and even contempt of court if it defies a final and executory decision, Zubiri said.
“To those still wanting the impeachment trial to proceed, this I want to tell you: we may be courting a contempt order from the Supreme Court and a possible constitutional crisis, not to mention a dangerous precedent, should we proceed with the impeachment trial in defiance of a unanimous en banc ruling of the High Court,” Zubiri said.
Zubiri said the high court has the power of “judicial review,” even on impeachment, constitutionally a task of Congress.
“Ignoring the SC decision is tantamount to eroding the very principle of ‘judicial review’ established in Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936) and, in turn, endangers the delicate system of checks and balances that is foundational to our democracy,” Zubiri said.
“Whether we agree with the decision or not, the Supreme Court remains as the final arbiter of constitutional issues – lest we destabilize the very framework of government. Respect and honor the Supreme Court of the Republic,” he added.
Procedural lapse
Zubiri said the decision does not address the merits of the case, but only points to the “procedural lapse” by the House of Representatives that needs to be corrected.
“Now that the Court has spoken, the Senate will shift its full attention to legislation and oversight,” he added.
“We remain committed to upholding the rule of law and preserving the checks and balances that define a healthy democracy,” he added.
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, who served as foreign affairs secretary during former president Duterte’s administration, expressed disappointment that some were questioning the Supreme Court’s role in reviewing the impeachment process.
Cayetano said the Supreme Court did not overstep its bounds, because it has a mandate to interpret the law even on legislative matters like impeachment.
“In the past, we accepted (the SC’s rulings). So I’m wondering why they’re now questioning the role of the SC,” he added.
Other senators not politically aligned with the Duterte camp said the Senate has no choice but to respect the decision of the Supreme Court.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson said the rule of law is at stake if the Senate defies the Supreme Court. “The biggest loser is the rule of law if the Supreme Court ruling is not followed,” Lacson said.
“The final arbiter of the Constitution is the Supreme Court. We have nothing to rely on to interpret the law, but the Supreme Court,” he said.
Sen. JV Ejercito agreed, saying the Senate has to respect the decision of a co-equal branch of government.
“I always believe in the rule of law. Let’s respect a co-equal branch. We may or may not agree, but if we do not comply, there might be a constitutional crisis,” Ejercito said.
Judicial overreach
Sen. Francis Pangilinan called the SC decision a “judicial overreach.”
“This judicial overreach done at this late stage sets a terrible precedent and has far reaching consequences,” he said.
“Hypothetically, should the Senate sit as an impeachment court to try an impeached Supreme Court justice accused of corruption or other high crimes, it can then, upon a petition filed, point to this ruling and forthwith simply declare the complaint as unconstitutional,” Pangilinan, a lawyer, said.
Pangilinan said he agreed with the view of former Supreme Court justice and constitutional framer Adolf Azcuna, that the “doctrine of operative fact” should have been applied, and that a trial should have still been allowed to push through under the previous definition of the “one-year bar rule.”
“As a senator-judge, it is my view that at this late stage in the process of impeachment, we in the Senate are duty bound to proceed with trial as mandated by the Constitution. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, in exercising its power of judicial review under the very same Constitution, has prevented the Senate from proceeding with trial by declaring the impeachment complaint as unconstitutional,” Pangilinan said.
He said Azcuna’s take on the decision offers a “way out of this impasse… in order for the country to prevent a constitutional crises” – by allowing the House of Representatives to appeal the decision, citing the “operative facts doctrine.”
“The Supreme Court may then reconsider its ruling and if so, the constitutional duty for the Senate to forthwith proceed with trial can be observed and respected. In doing so, several provisions of the Constitution – namely, the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review, the HoR power to initiate impeachment complaints and Senate’s power to try and decide Impeachment cases – are harmonized and all three are given validity and legal effect as it ought to,” Pangilinan said.
“It is a well established rule in constitutional construction that one provision of the Constitution should not be allowed to defeat another,” Pangilinan added, citing Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary.
For his part, Sen. Bam Aquino said he supports continuing the trial and asked his colleagues to have a closed-door meeting or caucus on the matter.
“I firmly believe an impeachment trial should proceed. I call on my colleagues to hold a caucus to discuss this decision that ignores the duty of the Senate under the Constitution,” Aquino said.
