Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna said Senate President Win Gatchalian need not sit beside Senator Chiz Escudero on the rostrum during Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, calling the arrangement indecisive though not unconstitutional; Azcuna noted the Senate has latitude to designate a presiding officer and that Gatchalian should yield the chair after convening and return only to adjourn.

Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna said Senate President Win Gatchalian need not sit beside Senator Chiz Escudero on the rostrum during Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, calling the arrangement indecisive though not unconstitutional; Azcuna noted the Senate has latitude to designate a presiding officer and that Gatchalian should yield the chair after convening and return only to adjourn. | Daily Tribune

Thus, we have the spectacle of Gatchalian and Escudero sitting side by side on the rostrum, looking down on the court.

Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna said Gatchalian need not sit beside Escudero because the arrangement creates an impression of indecisiveness.

Azcuna, a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution, said the Senate president should open the proceedings, formally designate the senator who will preside, and return to the chair only to adjourn the session.

“Normally, in parliamentary practice, the chair yields to another member and doesn’t have to sit beside him,” Azcuna said.

He said that while the practice is not mandatory, having both the Senate president and the presiding officer seated together on the rostrum sends the wrong signal.

“I think it shows indecisiveness on the part of the Senate President in staying halfway between delegating the chair to another and, at the same time, appearing to be in control. To me, that doesn’t look good,” he said.

Azcuna explained that, in legislative practice, the Senate president normally convenes the session, asks another senator to preside, and then relinquishes the chair for the duration of the proceedings.

“The Senate President opens it, says, ‘May I ask Senator so-and-so to chair this meeting?’ then yields. After the proceedings, he returns only to close the session. That’s the normal way it should be done,” he said.

Azcuna emphasized, however, that the current arrangement adopted by the Senate does not violate either the Constitution or the chamber’s rules.

The Constitution specifies only that the Chief Justice must preside when the President is tried in an impeachment case. In all other impeachment proceedings, including the trial of the Vice President, the Charter leaves it to the Senate to determine who should preside.

“I think it is allowed under the provisions of the Constitution,” Azcuna said, noting that the Charter authorizes the Senate to promulgate rules to implement impeachment proceedings effectively.

He also dismissed arguments based on the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, saying a proposal requiring the Senate president to preside over all non-presidential impeachment trials was never adopted.

According to Azcuna, the framers intentionally left the matter to the Senate because it concerns the chamber’s internal procedures.

“The commission decided to leave it to the Senate because it’s an internal matter,” he said.

Azcuna nevertheless gave high marks to the handling of the impeachment proceedings thus far, saying the presiding officer has effectively navigated difficult procedural issues during the opening days of the trial.

Win sits through the proceedings like he’s part of the decor. No one asks him anything, and he doesn’t offer anything. A potted plant he is.