Impeachment is not teleserye, House told: Ex-SC justice warns against preempting Senate’s role

Retired Supreme Court (SC) Justice Adolfo Azcuna warned that the House of Representatives may be overstepping its role in the impeachment hearings against Vice President Sara Duterte, urging the lawmakers to avoid turning the preliminary proceedings into a full-blown trial.

In a recent television interview, Azcuna said the House Committee on Justice should keep its hearings “low-key” and avoid an excessive public spectacle, noting that impeachment proceedings risk becoming performative rather than procedural.

He underscored that the committee’s mandate is limited to determining whether sufficient grounds exist to elevate the complaint to the Senate, which has the sole authority to conduct an impeachment trial.

“They should not be the ones to expound on the discrepancies — that will be preempting the role of the Senate,” Azcuna said, referring to issues such as the Vice President’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth.

He warned that the panel may be “bordering on a fishing expedition” if it begins gathering evidence beyond what the complainants had submitted, saying it was the responsibility of the complainants — not Congress — to build the case, and that going beyond this risked turning the proceedings into an “inquisitorial” exercise inconsistent with the country’s adversarial legal system.

“For example, they said in the resolution that a committee hearing should be limited to finding out whether or not the grounds were sufficient, the evidence was strong enough, and then copies are provided,” he noted.

“So, in other words, it’s a very limited role in the committee. What is important is the trial in the Senate and, of course, the action of the House in plenary,” he said.

“The drama now, it seems to me, is being focused on the committee and perhaps the attempt, because they may feel that they don’t have the votes in the Senate, they have the votes in the committee,” he added.

The former justice said some lawmakers may be using the committee hearings to publicly air the evidence rather than secure a conviction in the Senate.

“They might try to expose all their evidence in the committee because the objective is not really to convict because they know they don’t have the votes, but to expose the Vice President,” he said, adding that this “can be done, they think, at the committee level.”

Azcuna noted that while the House has the power to subpoena witnesses, such authority should be used sparingly and within bounds.

For instance, individuals like alleged bagman Ramil Madriaga may be summoned only to confirm affidavits, not to deliver full testimonies that would be more appropriate during a Senate trial.

“So they can adopt rules, and they have adopted rules on how far the committee at that level can investigate. So that’s all right, as long as they do not impede on, they do not invade the power of the Senate to try the case,” he said.

“And I think they are bordering on that, because they are summoning witnesses, vital witnesses, and I think they plan to expose the whole testimony of this witness in full, as if it’s a full-dress trial, when it should be more on determining whether or not there is probable cause,” he added.

Azcuna emphasized that an impeachment — historically rooted in systems in England and the United States as a constitutional alternative to removing abusive leaders without violence — should not devolve into public entertainment.

In the Philippines, he lamented, the process risks becoming a teleserye if not handled with restraint.

Despite his concerns, Azcuna clarified that the House may continue its investigation as long as it does not encroach on the Senate’s exclusive power to try impeachment cases, urging the lawmakers to strike a balance between transparency and due process.