INDEED, the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte is creating the worst stir in the Philippine society today. No, not the impeachment itself as a process in making certain levels of officials accountable for their deeds. Rather, the stir emanates from the way the Senate is doing its responsibilities to comply with the provisions of the Constitution with regard to disposing of the case.
We have, for example, the Senators’ diverse interpretation of the word “forthwith” in the Constitution prescribing the period with which to start the impeachment trial. We also have senators who insisted on remanding the impeachment case to the House of Representatives, reportedly due to the Lower House’s failure to justify its having allowed to have at least three impeachment charges to be filed in just a matter of weeks.
Such, according to the Senators who approved the resolution remanding the impeachment case against the Vice President, is expressly prohibited by the Constitution within a period of one year. Then we have the majority of the Senators demanding from the House a written intention that it will pursue the impeachment case once the trial in the Senate is started.
What is clear, however, is that in remanding the case to the House, the Senate as a court has at least temporarily given up its acquiring of jurisdiction of the impeachment case against the Vice President. And certainly, it reacquires full jurisdiction when the House fully complies with what is demanded by the impeachment court.
In fact, Sen. Koko Pimentel’s reaction to the remanding of the case is that of a surprise. He said he has not found any provision in the Constitution governing impeachment cases allowing some kind of a “return to sender” methodology.
Whether the majority of Filipinos agree with Pimentel’s view, it is unfortunately moot and academic. The numbers game rules in the Senate, and 18 of 25 Senators voted to remand the case to the House.
From here on, various legal and even pseudo-legal minds appeared like mushrooms, letting out conflicting opinions on the issues that came up with the moves adopted by the Senate on VP Sara’s impeachment case.
Personally, though, we find the Senate’s and the House’s dealing with the impeachment case against the Vice President more of an “orchestra-like” maneuvering – each institution acting on the beat of a conductor. The Upper Chamber, through the majority who voted for remanding, is covertly showing hesitance to proceed with the trial. They push back to the House the impeachment case, hoping that the latter will accept the remanded case.
Why? Is it because, according to a former Supreme Court Associate Justice, acceptance by the House results in the “beneficial dismissal” of the case against the VP, and by not accepting the remanded impeachment complaint, means the Senate is obligated to proceed with the trial, according to the former SC justice?
On the other hand, the House actions on the same case are similarly situated to its counterpart Upper Chamber. While impeaching an impeachable official is a constitutional duty, the possibility is that there could be other motives, the intention of which is to dictate what to do while hiding in the ambit of the Constitution.
However, there is something intriguing in the move resorted to by the Senate. And to the more discerning political observers, this could be the possible “Achilles’s heel” of the anti-impeachment Senators.
Take note of this. Voting 18 – 5 in remanding the impeachment case against VP Sara, the leadership of the Impeachment court also issued an order to the vice president to answer the charges contained in the Articles of Impeachment not more than ten (10) days after receipt of the order.
Are the senator-judges certain the House will not accept the remanded impeachment case, so they have to proceed with ordering the VP to submit her answer?
In fact, it is the order of the impeachment court presided over by Senate President Chiz Escudero that led Senator Pimentel to comment that at least the Court leadership has a “pakonswelo de bobo.”
In the meantime, what the impeachment case against the second-highest official of the land clearly succeeded in bringing out to the open is the brewing enmity of the two law-making bodies of the Philippine government.
We have a Senate whose President did not hesitate to charge the Lower House of wanting to dictate on what the Upper House has to do with regards to the impeachment of the VP. And we have a Lower Chamber that seems to ram to the Senate an impeachment case barely two hours before the close of the session period, forcing the Senate to accept the case documents sans the opportunity to review the Articles of Impeachment.
Without doubt, the two institutions will be blaming each other when the heat of the people’s wrath, as a consequence of the VP’s impeachment, rubs in on them.
