(MindaNews / 27 June) – Impeachment is a constitutional process. Therefore, any issues or concerns about it must be resolved by first referring to the 1987 Constitution, specifically Sections 2 and 3 of Article XI. These provisions set up the basic institutional framework that governs the impeachment process. The expectation is that the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the impeached official will abide by the parameters established by the 1987 Constitution.
The political nature of the impeachment process cannot be used to justify actions that go beyond the prescriptions of the 1987 Constitution. Such as proclaiming that the Senate as an impeachment court has unlimited authority over the impeachment proceedings. Or a senator-judge filing a motion to dismiss the impeachment complaint. Note that impeachment is often described as a “political process” only to signify that it is not entirely a judicial process.
Indeed, as per the Supreme Court in Re: Letter of Mrs. Ma. Cristina Roco Corona [A.M. No. 20-07-10-SC, January 12, 2021]:
“Impeachment is, thus, designed to remove the impeachable officer from office, not punish him. It is purely political, and it is neither civil, criminal, nor administrative in nature. No legally actionable liability attaches to the public officer by a mere judgment of impeachment against him or her, and thus lies the necessity for a separate conviction for charges that must be properly filed with courts of law.”
However, “purely political” does not mean the impeachment process is primarily and exclusively steered by politicians. Partisan political actors will obviously do everything they can to exert influence, but the primordial consideration in the impeachment process must always be the 1987 Constitution. Senator-judges, in particular, from the moment impeachment is imminent, must demonstrate fidelity to the 1987 Constitution and the duty it imposes upon them. This would entail suppressing their respective partisan interests.
Lamentably, legislators from both chambers have shown the proclivity to ignore constitutional prescriptions and to give in to factional considerations. The impeachment court is again facing the question as to where its loyalty truly lies. Is it to the 1987 Constitution or to 2028? This test, of course, is about the motion to dismiss filed by Vice-President Sara Duterte. Is such a motion allowed by the constitution? Can the impeachment court act on it like a regular court of law would? Two provisions of the 1987 Constitution that require the conduct of an impeachment trial provide the answer.
First, “In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.” (Section 3 (4)) Note that the constitutional directive is to commence trial without delay.
Second, “The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.” (Section 3 (6)) Note that the constitutional command here is to “try and decide”. Thus, reiterating the order in the previous paragraph to proceed with trial immediately. So, what does it mean to conduct a trial?
Cambridge dictionary defines trial as “the hearing of statements and showing of objects, etc. in a law court to judge if a person is guilty of a crime or to decide a case or a legal matter”. In the context of impeachment, it is the formal process where the prosecution and the impeached official present to the impeachment court their respective arguments and supporting evidence. At the end of this process, the impeachment court will render a judgement of either conviction or acquittal.
It must be emphasized that the impeachment process, by constitutional design, aims to hold those public officials occupying the loftiest and most insulated positions in government to account for grave abuses of power. Therefore, public interest demands that a trial be conducted because the people must know everything pertaining to the prosecution of the articles of impeachment and the counterarguments of the impeached official. There can absolutely be no short cuts in this regard.
So, if the 1987 Constitution requires the undertaking of an impeachment trial, then the dismissal of the impeachment complaint cannot be entertained because a dismissal means no trial will be conducted. Simply put, to grant the motion to dismiss filed by VP Duterte is a violation of the constitution. Hopefully, the senator-judges in the 20th Congress will stay true to their oath and not to political promises advancing their dynastic agendas.
(MindaViews is the opinion section of MindaNews. Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M is a law lecturer, policy analyst and constitutionalist.)