Prosecution reiterates need to subpoena SC justices

MANILA, Philippines - The House prosecution panel reiterated yesterday the need for the Senate impeachment court to approve their request to subpoena justices and Supreme Court (SC) records, including some minutes of their deliberations on certain associate justices, in a bid to bolster their impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Renato Corona.

“The prosecutors maintain that the principles of separation of powers or even claims to confidentiality of court records cannot diminish or curtail the constitutional mandate of an impeachment court as the sole authority to try impeachment cases,” the prosecution team said in a memorandum filed yesterday before the Senate impeachment court.

“If we render inutile the powers of the impeachment court or allow the Respondent to hinder the subpoena of the necessary evidence for the prosecution on the ground that it violates the separation of powers and the rule on confidentiality, then, it will be very difficult if not impossible for the people to convict a sitting justice for partiality and bias in favor of a party litigant. This absurd result could not have been intended by the Constitution,” the prosecution added.

In their memorandum, the prosecutors said that summoning justices and SC records are “very crucial” to the proper prosecution and management of the Articles of Impeachment, such as Article 7 and Article 3.

“Denial of the Prosecutor’s right to access the necessary evidence to prove its case is seriously disadvantageous to its capacity to manage and ‘prosecute’ the impeachment complaint,” the prosecution said.

“Prohibiting access to these evidence only makes it difficult, if not impossible, to try and impeach a justice of the Supreme Court on the ground of partiality or bias in rendering a decision,” they added.

The Senate, sitting as an impeachment body, denied last Feb. 8 the prosecution’s request to subpoena Associate Justices Martin Villarama, Maria Lourdes Sereno, Bienvenido Reyes and Presbitero Velasco Jr.

In the nine-page resolution, the impeachment court led by presiding officer Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile cited Section 2 of Rule 10 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court on the confidentiality of court sessions in denying the motion.

The body also pointed out that while the House has the exclusive power to impeach and the Senate has the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases, it is still Congress, one of the three branches of government, which is exercising the prerogative under the Constitution.

“Hence, whether it is performing a legislative function or sitting as an impeachment court, the Senate is not insulated from the operation of the principle of separation of powers,” the body noted.

The Senate also cited the case of Santiago vs. Sandiganbayn on the doctrine of separation of powers, which stressed that “each of the three great powers of government has exclusive prerogatives and cognizance with its own sphere of influence and effectively prevents one branch from unduly intruding with the internal affairs of either branch.”

Enrile stressed in the resolution that respecting each branch “has to be so in order to maintain the balance of power among the three branches.”

The court also stressed that this would prevent the aggrandizement of one branch at the expense of another, and prevent too much concentration of powers in only one branch.

A class of its own

But the prosecution team led by Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas said the impeachment court couldn’t be considered as coequal with the judiciary.

Tupas said while the Senate may be deemed a coequal branch of the judiciary, the Senate sitting as an impeachment court cannot be considered a coequal of the judiciary.

“Therefore it cannot be deemed to violate the principles of separation of powers when it issues subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum on other branches of government. This is because, in its sphere, the impeachment court is supreme and a class of its own; in its domain the impeachment court is the master. The impeachment court has a mandate to perform, and that is, to determine the accountability of public officers and their fitness to remain in office,” he added.