MANILA, Philippines – Facing criticism over the postponement of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile stated that he is uncertain whether the regulations governing these proceedings have been updated to permit such delays.
However, if the regulations remain unchanged, Enrile thinks the Senate did not fulfill its responsibilities.
During a conversation with Axofa.net on Tuesday, Enrile mentioned that when he served in the Senate, they promptly addressed impeachment articles submitted to them. The 1987 Constitution mandates that such trials should move forward immediately once one-third of the House of Representatives files an impeachment charge.
On February 5, when 215 legislators submitted the impeachment papers, and considering that one-third of the total 306 representatives equals 102, the necessary threshold for initiating proceedings was met.
"The House fulfilled its role; they held hearings, discovered some issues, and even though you might disagree, they presented their findings to the Senate for further action. According to the Constitution, which uses the word 'forthwith,' the Senate should address this matter promptly. They were expected to act within a reasonable timeframe, yet instead of doing so, they delayed and procrastinated," stated Enrile.
"Worse still, they returned it to the House and instructed that body—which is inappropriate and against parliamentary rules—to undertake an action that they themselves had performed. One must assume that the other chamber has acted properly unless proven otherwise; you can’t order or direct the other house, as it holds equal standing," he further explained.
Enrile, who took part in the impeachment trial of ex-president Joseph Estrada as a senator-judge and later served as the presiding officer during the impeachment trial of former Chief Justice Renato Corona, stated that the postponement of the impeachment process and the return of the charges are unprecedented occurrences.
"I am unsure if the rules have been altered. The Constitution is quite explicit; one has to immediately attempt to reach a decision—of course, when I mention 'attempt,' this involves listening to all the evidence before deciding between an acquittal or conviction," he stated.
"I am unsure if the rules have been altered. We lack prior experiences or precedents for situations where impeachment complaints are sent back to the impeaching body, which is the House of Representatives, as has occurred now," he further stated.
Enrile stated that during the Estrada impeachment proceedings, the complaint submitted by the House to the Senate was handed over to the Senate committee on rules. It was then scheduled for initial consideration. Afterward, it went back to the committee allowing the senator-judges to establish guidelines and carry out pre-hearing procedures.
The committee on rules' report was subsequently returned to the plenary for a second reading as stated by Enrile, adding that at this stage, notifications had been dispatched to the prosecutors, the individual facing impeachment, their legal representatives, and in Estrada’s case, also to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Regarding the Corona case, which the present Senate is citing as a precedent, the articles were submitted to the plenary for discussion. Enrile mentioned that despite some inconsistencies during the proceedings, the trial continued nonetheless.
"I am unsure if the procedure has been altered, but in those two instances where the impeachment complaint was transmitted by the House as the initiating body according to the Constitution, the process involved the Secretary-General of the Senate forwarding it to the Committee on Rules, which is led by the Majority Floor Leader. On the very next legislative day, this committee would place the impeachment complaint onto the agenda for first reading," he explained.
"And during that initial reading, the plenary session of the Senate refers it to the appropriate committee to undertake the required preliminary procedures needed to get ready for the trial, hearings, and the decision made by the senator-j jurors," he explained.
Enrile additionally mentioned that these postponements indicate Duterte’s reluctance to undergo an impeachment trial.
Following Duterte’s impeachment on February 5, the House transferred the articles of impeachment to the Senate. However, the trial didn’t commence right away because these articles weren’t addressed during the Senate plenary session prior to the 19th Congress ending its term due to the election recess.
The final session day for both the Senate and the House before the recess was February 5.
On May 23rd, Senate President Francis Escudero dispatched a communication to House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, extending an invitation for the House prosecution panel to address the Senate plenary session scheduled for June 2nd regarding the presentation of the articles of impeachment.
Escudero previously stated that on June 3, the following day, the Senate would assemble as an impeachment court.
Nevertheless, last Thursday, Escudero dispatched yet another letter to Romualdez notifying him that the discussion of the articles has been pushed back to June 11.
READ: Impeachment charges against Sara Duterte will be presented on June 11.
However, even prior to the prosecution team visiting the Senate, there were worries that an impeachment trial for Duterte might not proceed as planned once draft Senate resolutions aiming to dismiss the charges began circulating.
READ: Lacson: Flawed resolution aiming to impeach Sara Duterte is being circulated as waste
On June 10, the Senate assembled as an impeachment tribunal. Nonetheless, later that same day, 18 senator-judges supported a motion put forth by Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano, resulting in the articles of impeachment being sent back to the House.
Following the remand, the prosecution team stated that they will submit a motion to request the Senate for clarity on their decision to return the articles of impeachment.
Unless their queries are resolved, House prosecution team member and Batangas 2nd District Representative Gerville Luistro stated that the House will postpone accepting the returned items. However, she emphasized that their move does not show disobedience toward the Senate directive; rather, they aim to clear up potential concerns.
READ: House aims for clarification on Senate's return before accepting case
Duterte’s impeachment rested on various concerns, such as claims of improper use of confidential funds within their office, revealed during hearings conducted by the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability. Additionally, accusations included threats to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and Romualdez.
READ: The House impeaches Vice President Sara Duterte and quickly moves the case to the Senate.
Here are the articles of impeachment submitted by the House:
Article I: Violation of Public Trust, Commitment of Serious Offenses Due to Her Threats to Assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez
Article II: Disloyalty to Public Trust and Corruption Due to Misuse of Funds Within the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Office of the Vice President
Article III: Disloyalty to Public Trust and Bribery Within the DepEd
Article IV: Breach of the 1987 Constitution and abandonment of civic duty because of inexplicable riches and refusal to reveal financial holdings
Article V: Commission of serious offenses, related to participation in extrajudicial killings during the drug war
Article VI: Violation of Public Trust Due to Alleged Schemes for Destabilization and Serious Offenses of Sedition and Insurrection
Article VII: Treason Through Improper Conduct as Vice President /das