As the House of Representatives prepares for its plenary vote on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, attention has shifted to the Senate where some senators said they may vote not to convene the impeachment court, a position that retired Associate Justice Antonio Carpio said would be a violation of the Constitution.
All 318 House members will vote on the committee report containing the consolidated articles of impeachment against Duterte on 11 May, following the five days given to read and study the documents.
If at least 106 signatures are attached to the articles, they can be sent to the Senate immediately without a nominal floor vote by each lawmaker. Otherwise, the full plenary will proceed to vote.
As of 7 May, some 215 House members have expressed support for impeachment, more than twice the 106 needed.
After at least one-third of all House members vote in favor, the House will elect 11 of its members to serve as public prosecutors for the Vice President’s impeachment trial.
The House public prosecutors can enlist the help of private prosecutors. The articles will then be transmitted to the Senate, which will convene as an impeachment court.
Monday’s vote is widely expected to pass, formally sending Duterte to a Senate trial — for the second time.
Trial should proceed forthwith
Carpio said the Senate cannot be prevented from convening as an impeachment court once the articles of impeachment are transmitted.
“Once the articles of impeachment are transmitted to the Senate, a trial shall proceed forthwith. Shall proceed. Trials shall proceed. It can’t be dismissed,” Carpio emphasized.
“Even if the majority will say they don’t want a trial, that they will dismiss it right away, they cannot do that because (the Constitution states) that a trial shall proceed,” Carpio pointed out.
Senator Panfilo Lacson has also vowed to push back against efforts to block the upper chamber from convening as an impeachment court.
It was Lacson, who belongs to the majority bloc, who earlier suggested that the Senate may not convene as an impeachment court if a majority of the senators voted against it.
Lacson subsequently clarified, however, that his statement should not be construed as a deliberate refusal, explaining that the Senate, as a collegial body, would rule by the decision of the majority.
“I did not say I will not oppose and vote against any motion to stop or delay the convening of the Senate into an impeachment court, if it comes to that,” he said.
“If this constitutional issue arises, the Supreme Court may intervene to compel the Senate to perform our constitutional duty,” he added.
Nonetheless, he emphasized that his position on the convening of the court has nothing to do with how he would vote on whether to convict or acquit the VP.
“I will always be guided by the evidence to be presented and nothing else,” he said.
Abuse of discretion
Lawyer Tranquil Salvador III, a member of the defense team of the late Chief Justice Renato Corona during the latter’s 2012 impeachment trial, warned that the Senate risks committing a “grave abuse of discretion” if it won’t convene as a trial court.
He said this is mandated upon the Senate, regardless of how its members vote.
An associate dean and a constitutional law professor at the University of the Philippines, lawyer Paolo Tamese, shared the same view.
He said the Senate is duty-bound to act on an impeachment case by convening as a trial court. He warned that the Senate’s defiance may prompt new Supreme Court petitions and could derail the trial of Duterte, as happened last year.
Last year, in the previous Congress, the minority bloc mounted a similar effort, but it failed to stop the Senate from convening as an impeachment court.
Still, no trial was held because the Senate returned the articles of impeachment to the House, which further delayed a trial.
In July, the Supreme Court ruled that the impeachment case against Duterte was unconstitutional and void for violating the one-year bar rule. Thus she escaped impeachment and avoided a trial.