The impasse between the two chambers of Congress over the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has put the rule of law in a precarious situation.
“Some people think it is a light problem for the country but, no sir, we are in a very dangerous situation,” Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile warned.
Acting as an impeachment court, the Senate, on 10 June, voted 18-5 to return the articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives for “certification of constitutional compliance.”
The move was rooted in concerns over the constitutionality of the House’s handling of multiple impeachment complaints within a year.
Yet it precipitated a deadlock in both chambers of Congress, leaving an impasse that may need to be untangled by going to the Supreme Court for an interpretation.
“But to me, there is no need because we have the impeachment of former President Joseph Estrada and the late Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona (as reference on procedures),” Enrile explained.
For the veteran public servant, the process must be allowed to continue to prevent a constitutional entanglement.
“A House failure to accept the remanding of the articles of impeachment presents a dilemma,” he indicated.
That can only be remedied by going to the SC for an interpretation, “which will become jurisprudence and part of the law of the land to define and clarify that portion of the Constitution.”
The only other choice is to amend the Charter to redefine the process.
The Constitution does not specify how to break an impasse, as Enrile noted that the Senate cannot command the House to do anything, and vice versa.
For the seasoned official, the House did its part through the public inquiries. “They found something wrong. You may disagree with them, but they found out and they submitted it to the Senate for resolution,” Enrile held.
The Senate must do its part “with reasonable speed based on what the Constitution terms as forthwith,” explained the former Senate president, who was the presiding officer in the Corona trial.
He chided members of the chamber he was once a part of: “Anybody can understand that English, and they did not do it. They tried to dilly-dally, and then worse, they turned it back to the House and commanded the House, which is improper and unparliamentary.”
Each chamber must give a presumption of regularity to the other.
“You cannot demand or command the other House, which is your co-equal. The Constitution is obvious that you must forthwith try to decide,” Enrile reminded his former Senate peers.
“When you say try, you must hear the evidence and then decide either to acquit or to convict,” he added.
The punishment, if convicted, is removal and disqualification from holding public office, but not jail, Enrile clarified.
“I don’t know if they changed the rules, but we never had the experience or procedure like what they have done now to return the complaint to the impeaching authority, which is the House of Representatives,” was Enrile’s take on the impeachment court’s move that a magistrate extolled as brilliant.