Shortcuts not allowed
The ponente of the ruling that junked the impeachment process, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, received praise from his peer, Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan.
Leonen wrote the majority decision that found Vice President Sara Duterte’s right to due process was violated.
It held that the House of Representatives was mistaken in believing that the verification and signature of at least one-third of its members were sufficient to meet the requirements of due process.
It underscored that due process applies to all stages of the impeachment process.
Gaerlan’s concurring opinion indicated that the impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez in 2011 was the first case where a respondent in an impeachment proceeding raised a violation of her right to due process.
Gutierrez filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court, primarily questioning the constitutionality of the simultaneous referral by the House of two impeachment complaints filed against her to the Committee on Justice.
“She anchored her claim on the alleged violation of the one-year bar rule and the due process clause of the 1987 Constitution,” according to the magistrate.
Gutierrez alleged that the proceeding before the Committee on Justice, headed by then-Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., was tainted with partiality and haste, effectively depriving her of a proceeding before an impartial tribunal.
She narrated that Tupas was the subject of an investigation she was conducting, while his father had been charged by her under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act before the Sandiganbayan.
In addition, she maintained that she was denied due process due to the delay in publishing the impeachment rules. The rules were published only after the Committee on Justice ruled that the impeachment complaints filed against her were sufficient in substance.
The Supreme Court tacitly acknowledged Gutierrez’s right to due process when it did not shy away from resolving her claim of denial of rights.
It found Gutierrez’s allegations of “bias and vindictiveness” as bereft of merit, just as it also rebuffed her contention regarding the need for publication of the House impeachment rules.
The Court explained that, unlike inquiries in aid of legislation wherein the 1987 Constitution explicitly requires the publication of its rules, the rules on impeachment need only be “promulgated,” and “when the Constitution itself has not prescribed a specific method of promulgation,” the Court is in no position to impose one.
Gaerlan then recalled that in the pursuit to oust Chief Justice Renato Corona, the late judiciary head filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court, claiming that his right to due process was violated during the impeachment proceedings as certain senator-judges had lost the cold neutrality of impartial judges.
However, during the pendency of the case, the impeachment trial ended with Corona’s conviction.
Thus, the Court no longer resolved the due process issue and dismissed the petition on the ground of mootness.
The case against Vice President Duterte marks the third time that a violation of due process rights was alleged.
“The ponencia is correct. It is high time for the Court to make a clear ruling on the applicability of due process in impeachment proceedings, as well as what constitutes the same.”
Upholding a basic right may be the key to halting smear campaigns as a basis for the ouster of an impeachable official.