Winston: House impeach retreat breaches Charter
The House prosecution panel violated Congress’ mandate when it withdrew three of the four articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte without first obtaining the approval of the House of Representatives, according to a prominent former political leader.
Lawyer Winston Garcia, co-founder and former chairman of the One Cebu party and former president and general manager of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), questioned whether an agent could countermand the express mandate of its principal.
He cited Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution which grants the House the exclusive power to initiate an impeachment.
The House exercised this authority when 257 members voted to approve four articles of impeachment against Duterte, then elected an 11-member prosecution panel to present the charges before the Senate.
Garcia said the House decided which charges to prosecute, while the panel was merely delegated the authority to pursue them.
Under the principle of delegated authority, an agent cannot reverse its principal’s instructions without authorization, he said.
The prosecution panel may exercise discretion in selecting its witnesses, presenting evidence, and conducting the trial, but abandoning approved charges is different from deciding how to prosecute them, Garcia pointed out.
Approval needed
By withdrawing Articles I, III and IV, the 11 prosecutors effectively altered the decision of the 257 House members, he said.
“Their explanation that concentrating on the remaining article would expedite the proceedings does not answer the fundamental question of authority,” Garcia said.
He asked why the panel did not first seek the House’s approval if it believed the three articles should be dropped.
Garcia said the Constitution need not expressly prohibit such withdrawals because the limitation could be implied from the nature of the delegated authority.
The Senate impeachment court’s acceptance of the withdrawal also did not necessarily establish that the panel had the authority to make the decision.
“Delegated authority is not independent authority. An agent cannot assume the power to undo what the principal has expressly directed it to accomplish,” he said.
Echoes of Corona trial
Garcia’s position echoed the objections raised by the late Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago during the 2012 impeachment trial of then Chief Justice Renato Corona.
The House prosecution, led by Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., announced it would drop five of the eight articles and proceed with the remaining three, saying they were sufficient to convict Corona.
Santiago had questioned whether the prosecution was withdrawing the articles or merely waiving the presentation of evidence. If the charges were withdrawn, she said, the complaint should be returned to the House for amendment.
She also accused the prosecution of misleading the court after promising to present evidence on all eight articles and criticized its public statements declaring Corona guilty before the trial concluded.
The impeachment court ultimately ruled that the withdrawal did not constitute an amendment and that the prosecution did not need to return the complaint to the House. It declined to receive evidence or vote on the five dropped articles.
The dispute has resurfaced in Duterte’s impeachment trial.
Senate impeachment court presiding officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero, who had raised a similar concern in 2012, said this week that once the articles were filed, they fell under the court’s jurisdiction and could not be unilaterally withdrawn.
Not a waste — Palace
Meanwhile, Palace spokesperson Claire Castro declined to weigh in on the claim of Duterte’s spokesperson, Atty. Salvador Paolo Panelo, that time and millions in taxpayer money were wasted on three impeachment articles that the House prosecution panel eventually withdrew.
“If three articles of impeachment were withdrawn, that was the prosecution’s decision. Whether time was wasted depends on how people view it because documents were presented and government officials participated as witnesses,” Castro said.
She pointed out that Duterte’s defense team did not object to the withdrawal.
“Both sides participated. There were lengthy cross-examinations, presentations by the prosecution, rebuttals and surrebuttals. All parties concerned participated, so no one can say the proceedings were wasted when facts and documents were presented to help explain the issues to the public,” she said.
Castro also dismissed suggestions by defense lead counsel Sheila Sison that the proceedings could result in a mistrial.
She said a mistrial could arise if a party was denied the opportunity to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses.
“In this case, there can be no mistrial because the defense was given ample time and opportunities to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses,” Castro said.
She reiterated that the defense did not object to the prosecution’s motion to withdraw the three impeachment articles.