While lawyers debate whether the impeachment trial should cross over to the next Congress, University of Santo Tomas (UST) Faculty of Civil Law Dean Nilo Divina seeks what ordinary Filipinos also want: the truth.

The House can retransmit and reaffirm the complaint to allow the trial to continue to the 20th Congress, Divina said, adding that technicalities should not bar the trial.

Stopping the impeachment process would frustrate a public eager to hear the defense of the Vice President against allegations raised against her in the Senate court.

“The public wants a trial. It would be good for the Vice President to clear the air,” Divina said. VP Duterte and her lawyers expressed readiness to address the complaints despite questioning “serious constitutional infirmities.”

The Senate tribunal remanded the impeachment complaints to the House of Representatives, seeking a certification from the chamber that it did not violate the Constitution’s provision limiting the impeachment of a government official to one case per year.

Former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna said remanding the impeachment complaints against VP Duterte ensures that it will not lapse in the 19th Congress.

The distinguished legal scholar and seasoned law practitioner takes a perspective beyond technicalities, focusing instead on the principles of justice, transparency, and accountability that the law upholds.

His views are rooted in legal expertise and a commitment to the public welfare.

Divina, in a commentary in DAILY TRIBUNE on 13 June, sees the impeachment process as a mechanism to establish facts, not to obscure them with legal technicalities.

He argued that the debate over whether the trial can cross over to the next Congress, set to convene in July, is not necessary since the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit a carryover of an impeachment case.

The real question, to him, is whether prematurely halting the process serves the public interest. Filipinos deserve a transparent resolution, regardless of congressional timelines, is Divina’s view.

The allegations against VP Duterte, which include corruption and other serious charges, involve public trust in governance, which should be given a venue to be aired and answered.

Divina contended that an impeachment trial, as a constitutional process, is uniquely positioned to address the issues raised by allowing evidence to be presented and scrutinized publicly.

He warned against dismissing the case on procedural grounds that would erode public confidence. “The law must not be a labyrinth that hides the truth,” Divina wrote, while urging the Senate court to prioritize substance over form.

His call aligns with the sentiment of Filipinos who view impeachment as an opportunity to hold powerful officials accountable, a principle that Divina has championed throughout his career.

Divina’s proposal that the Senate proceed with the trial while simultaneously allowing the House to address the constitutional concerns is sound and would ensure transparency.

The approach strikes a balance between legal rigor and the public’s right to know, prioritizing truth over technicalities.

The ace lawyer is among those who believe the Senate’s remand of the articles of impeachment to the House was “prudent, wise, Solomonic, and legally sound.”

Let the process take its natural, legal, and just course, and for the court to determine the guilt or innocence of the Vice President, according to Divina.

Clearing the air is what matters most to Filipinos, something that is frequently obscured by the interplay of vicious politics.