Sara seen at deep end with SC plea

Sara seen at deep end with SC plea | Daily Tribune

Vice President Sara Duterte’s legal effort to block her impending impeachment trial by seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention reflects a deepening political crisis for her.

Manila Rep. Joel Chua, a member of the 11-member House panel that will prosecute the VP, said it was ironic how Duterte had brushed off her impeachment by saying that a lovers’ breakup was more painful, yet she was now exploring all avenues to block her trial.

“She was trying to tell us that it was nothing, but now they seem to want to stop the impeachment. This kind of legal maneuvering by VP Sara’s camp is just a demonstration that they’re trying to do everything to obstruct it, or get it delayed,” Chua said in Filipino in an interview.

The House of Representatives impeached Duterte with 215 lawmakers, or more than twice the required one-third of members (102 signatories) voting to endorse the impeachment complaint.

Apart from lawyers from Mindanao, Duterte herself petitioned the SC on Wednesday to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to block her looming impeachment trial in the Senate where, if she is convicted, she would be permanently barred from holding public office.

Duterte also prayed in her petition for certiorari and prohibition to nullify the articles of impeachment lodged by the House of Representatives against her, accusing the chamber and House Secretary General Reginald Velasco of grave abuse of discretion for withholding the first three impeachment complaints against her.

The VP alleged that the House deliberately circumvented the one-year ban mandated by the Constitution when it filed the fourth impeachment complaint in February, just two months after the first three separate complaints were filed in December.

Chua, on the other hand, countered that Duterte and her legal counsel — the Fortun, Narvasa and Salazar law firm — were “wrong in interpreting the situation because the first three complaints were not referred to the committee on justice, from which the initiation can only be triggered.”

“It’s clear in our rules: No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official within a period of one year. Impeachment shall be initiated by the filing and subsequent referral to the committee on justice,” he pointed out.

“The three complaints were not referred to the committee, so it cannot be said that there had been an initiation. How could this apply to the one-year ban?” Chua said.

According to Velasco, Duterte’s issue with the delays in the first three complaints was “moot” since they were transmitted after the fourth complaint was forwarded to the Senate.

The first three impeachment complaints, all filed in December, failed to secure the required endorsement of at least one-third of the members of the House, equivalent to 102 votes.

“One thing is clear: they’re trying to prevent the impeachment proceedings. And it is also clear that they are afraid,” Chua said.

Nonetheless, he said that if Duterte’s camp believes that the impeachment case is weak, it’s all the more crucial to move forward with the proceedings.

Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero said the upper chamber, which will sit as the impeachment court, will only act on the impeachment complaint once it resumes its session in June or at the start of the 20th Congress in July, unless the SC issues a TRO.

However, former Senate president and Justice secretary Franklin Drilon argued that initiating the impeachment trial was beyond the power of Escudero but rather lay with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

“The ball is in President Marcos’ court. He alone has the power to call a special session where the impeachment complaint and articles of impeachment will begin to be discussed by the impeachment court,” he said in Filipino in an interview.

Although lawmakers from both the House and the Senate had said the President had no business meddling in the impeachment, citing the separation of powers, Drilon stressed there was nothing in the Constitution that said that Marcos could not call a special session.

“There is no limit to the President’s power to call a special session. That is in the Constitution. [He can order] the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty of deciding the impeachment complaint filed by the House,” he explained.

Moreover, Drilon said it was not the SC that would decide on whether the Senate should convene a trial court to try Duterte because the discretion lay with Marcos.

Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro, also a member of the prosecution panel, had previously said that the Constitution is silent on who should take the initiative.

“We’ve heard it loud and clear; it looks like they’re waiting for each other. The President wants the Senate to initiate the request, while the SP is waiting for the President to initiate the request,” she said in an interview.

Retired SC Senior Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, had warned that the House’s effort to impeach Duterte would go to waste if the Senate fails to acquire jurisdiction over the case before the new Congress takes over.

He said the Senate could only take jurisdiction if Escudero takes an oath as the presiding judge of the impeachment tribunal. If this happens, the trial can continue even if the House’s composition changes in the 20th Congress.