House confident SC will let VP impeachment proceed

MANILA, Philippines — The House of Representatives is confident the Supreme Court (SC) will dismiss the petition questioning the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte.

Manila 3rd district Rep. Joel Chua, one of the 11 House prosecutors, and Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon stressed at a news briefing that the House acted within the bounds of the Constitution and established jurisprudence when it transmitted the seven Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.

Chua and Ridon pointed out that applying the one-year ban rule on filing impeachment complaints based on referrals will only make the impeachment process prone to politicking, where parties will just file a complaint no matter how frivolous.

“This is not the first time that this happened. This happened during the time of deposed president Estrada. We have what we call in legal parlance, presumption of regularity or legality,” Chua said.

He also warned against using the referral rule as a weapon to block valid impeachment efforts.

“For example, I am an ally of the President, then what I will do is to file an impeachment suit every year, even if it’s only a scrap of paper, if only to meet the one-year ban rule.”

Ridon echoed the same sentiments, stressing the importance of the proceedings given the gravity of the allegations.

“The crux of the matter here is accountability in terms of the utilization of confidential funds. We have also been talking about here the safety and security of the President, the First Lady and the Speaker of the House,” he said.

‘No reason for delay’

For a professor at the University of the Philippines College of Law, the recent SC resolution on the impeachment case of Vice President Duterte should not be a reason to further delay her trial.

In an interview with “Storycon” on One News, UP College of Law assistant professor Paolo Tamase said some senators may see the SC directive as an “escape device” to delay Duterte’s trial.

However, he said this should not be the case since the high court did not issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order (TRO).

“You now have another opening for the Senate to possibly delay the trial, which they will probably phrase as they will wait for the resolution of these issues before resolving themselves whether they can hold trial, which I think would be a mistake,” Tamase said.

“The court has not issued a preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court has not issued a TRO. Therefore, like the Corona impeachment, the Senate should assert its independence and supremacy over questions of impeachment and proceed to trial until it is stopped by the Supreme Court,” he added.

During the impeachment trial of former chief justice Renato Corona, Tamase noted that the Senate proceeded with the trial despite a pending petition before the high court.

The UP law professor said that while the SC is expected to take action on the petition, the “tenor” of the resolution was surprising.

The SC resolution directed the House to provide specific information about the impeachment of the Vice President.

Tamase noted that the SC usually is not a “trier of facts,” but recognized that the “unique character of impeachment” may have pressed it to “simply ask for information directly from the House.”–  Janvic Mateo