VP Sara's SC petition signals 'fear' of impeachment trial — prosecutors

Vice President Sara Duterte’s attempt to block her impending impeachment trial by seeking Supreme Court (SC) intervention is a clear indication of her reluctance to face the proceedings amid mounting allegations against her, House prosecutors said Thursday.

Manila Rep. Joel Chua, a member of the 11-member prosecution panel, said it was ironic that Duterte initially dismissed the impeachment case by comparing it to a breakup but is now exploring all legal avenues to halt the 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 that VP Sara's camp is just a demonstration that they're trying to do everything to obstruct it, or get it delayed,” he said in an interview in Filipino. 

Ako Bicol Rep. Angelo Bongalon, another prosecution panel member, echoed similar sentiments.

“This is a clear sign that the Vice President is afraid to face the evidence against her. If she truly believes she is innocent, why is she running to the Supreme Court instead of preparing her defense before the Senate? This move reeks of desperation,” Bongalon said.

The House of Representatives impeached Duterte on 20 February, with 215 lawmakers—more than double the required one-third (102 votes)—voting to endorse the impeachment complaint.

Aside from Mindanaoan lawyers, Duterte herself petitioned the SC on 19 February, seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the Senate impeachment trial, which, if it leads to a conviction, could permanently bar her 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. 

Duterte alleged that the House deliberately circumvented the one-year ban mandated by the Constitution by filing the fourth impeachment complaint in February, just two months after the first three were submitted in December.

Chua, on the other hand, countered that Duterte and her legal counsel—Fortun, Narvasa, and Salazar Law Firm—are “wrong in interpreting 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 explained. 

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

Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro, another prosecution panel member, emphasized that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to establish its own impeachment rules.

“And to be precise, we followed word for word the rules of the 19th Congress of the Philippines in as far as the verification is concerned,” she said.

According to Velasco, Duterte’s claim regarding the delays in the first three complaints is "moot", as those cases were already archived after the fourth impeachment complaint was forwarded to the Senate. 

The first three impeachment complaints, all filed in December, failed to secure the required one-third endorsement from the House’s 102 members.

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

However, he added that if Duterte’s camp truly believes the impeachment case is weak, then moving forward with the proceedings should not be a concern.

Senate President Francis "Chiz" Escudero stated that the Senate, which will serve as the impeachment court, will only act on the impeachment complaint once it resumes 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 is beyond Escudero’s authority, stating that it is President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. who has the power to convene a special session to begin the trial.

“The ball is in President Marcos's 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 an interview, partly in Filipino.

Although lawmakers from both the House and the Senate have clarified that the President has no business meddling with impeachment, citing the principle of separation of powers, Drilon contested that there is absolutely no limitation in the Constitution with regard to Marcos calling for 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 o the impeachment complaint filed by the House,” he explained.

Moreover, Drilon also made it clear that it is not the SC that will decide whether to push or not the Senate with Duterte’s impeachment by convening a trial court because such discretion lies with Marcos.

Previously, Luistro pointed out that the Constitution does not explicitly state who should take the first step in convening the impeachment trial.

"We've heard it loud and clear; it looks like they're waiting for each other. The President wanted the Senate to initiate the request, while 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, warned that the House’s impeachment effort would be futile if the Senate fails to take jurisdiction over the case before the 20th Congress convenes.

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

However, House prosecutors argued that the trial could extend into the 20th Congress since impeachment is not legislative in nature.