DAVAO CITY (MindaNews/27 March)– A group of lawyers supporting Vice President Sara Duterte filed a petition before the Supreme Court (SC) on Friday, 27 March, seeking to block the ongoing impeachment proceedings being conducted by the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives.
The lawyers, acting in their capacity as “Filipino citizens and taxpayers,” lodged a 186-page petition for certiorari and prohibition, with prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, with the SC just two days after the Committee on Justice began the hearing proper on impeachment complaints against Duterte.
In a press conference streamed live on the Facebook page of Davao City 1st District Councilor Luna Acosta, Atty. Israelito Torreon, a co-petitioner in the case, argued that the ongoing impeachment proceedings suffer serious ‘constitutional defects’ which he said amounted to grave abuse of discretion on the part of Committee members.
Torreon said the Committee applied double standards in its handling of the impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. which the body dismissed on the ground of insufficiency of substancecompared with those filed against Duterte.
“When it came to Vice President Duterte, the Committee suddenly became permissive. Complaints that were conclusion-driven, duplicative, hearsay-driven, and openly investigative in character were allowed to proceed. The Constitution does not allow one rule for Marcos and another for Duterte,” Torreon noted.
Torreon’s co-petitioners include Atty. Resci Angeli R. Rizada-Nolasco, Atty. Martin B. Delgra III, Atty. Wendel E. Avisado, Atty. James Patrick R. Bondoc, Atty. Victor D. Rodriguez, Atty. Raul Lambino, Atty. Jesus V. Hinlo Jr., Dr. Richard T. Mata, and Acosta.
Petitioners ask the SC to “annul and restrain” the Committee on Justice in “giving due course to, entertaining, and proceeding upon the third and fourth impeachment complaints,” referring to the complaints filed by Reverend Father Saballa, et. al., and Atty. Nathaniel G. Cabrera.
Both complaints had earlier been ruled sufficient in form, substance, and grounds.
Torreon questioned the issuance of several subpoenas ad tesficandum and subpoenas duces tecum after the March 25 hearing to obtain, among others, Duterte’s statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth, copy of the investigation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation into the alleged threat to kill President Marcos, first lady Liza Marcos, and former speaker Martin Romualdez, and records from the Commission on Audit.
According to Torreon, the impeachment proceedings have turned into a “fishing expedition” intended to build a case.
“It (Committee) even expanded its own powers by even sending its subpoenas to strengthen its case, but we contemplated that with the proper procedures, the impeachment complaints should be complete in themselves, and the House of Representatives should have determined whether or not it was sufficient in form, and sufficient in substance,” he said.
He maintained that “Committee’s task at the threshold stage is to screen, not to manufacture a case,” noting that a “threshold review is not a license for a fishing expedition.”
“Serious due process problem runs through the entire process. The respondent is entitled to answer a fixed and sufficient complaint, not an expanding investigation. Due process is impossible, whether the complaint is allowed to survive first and then enlarged later through subpoenas and outside evidence. One cannot say the complaint is already sufficient and then immediately behave as if the facts still need to be found,” he added.
In a press conference on Wednesday, Batangas 2nd District Representative Gerville R. Luistro, who chairs the Committee on Justice, said the ongoing hearings are akin to a preliminary investigation, intended to determine probable cause, not to determine Duterte’s “guilt or innocence.”
“There will be a clarificatory hearing as distinguished from a trial that is for the purpose of determining the existence or non-existence of probable cause. If you try to imagine, without a clarificatory hearing, how are we going to decide on the existence of probable cause?” she added.
Citing the recent Supreme Court’s decision Sara Z. Duterte vs House of Representatives, the lawmaker said the Court reminded the Lower Chamber to “go over the evidence, to weigh the same, and to make sure that even the House Members or Justice members understand and know the evidence that supports the allegations of offenses and allegations of grounds.”
Under Article XI, Section 3(3) of the Constitution, a vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House will be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee on Justice, or override its contrary resolution.
Once the Articles of Impeachment are filed, the Senate will later convene as an impeachment court and place Duterte on trial. (Antonio L. Colina IV/MindaNews)
