‘Stopping the clock’

As early as November last year, Vice President Sara Duterte admitted her battery of lawyers has been preparing for an impeachment case against her. That early, VP Sara had already seen telltale signs on her inevitably being set to be fried…er… tried under impeachment proceedings by the 19th Congress. Notably, this was a few months after her July resignation from the Cabinet as concurrent secretary of the Department of Education (DepEd).

But long before her bitter exit from the Cabinet team of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. (PBBM), VP Sara had already been locking horns with the leaders of the House of Representatives on her questioned utilization of the confidential and intelligence funds (CIF) in the 2023 budget of the DepEd. From the  budget, the Lower House subsequently trained their guns on the P612.5-million CIF disbursements in the Office of the Vice President (OVP).

VP Sara’s tussles with House lawmakers intensified after her OVP staff member was cited and detained for contempt. In the aftermath of the drama of her staff’s detention, VP Sara’s unhinged public declarations added fuel to the fire metaphorically engulfing the OVP. Her public avowals of getting someone committed to kill PBBM, his wife First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and Speaker Martin Romualdez were all encapsuled in the House-approved impeachment complaints against her.

The first impeachment case against VP Sara was filed with the House Secretary-General on Dec. 2 last year and later endorsed by one pink-lawan party-list representative. It cited culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, bribery and other wanton misuse of public funds as grounds for impeachment. Two days later, another impeach complaint centered on three allegations, which included the “abuse, misuse and wastage” of CIF; systematic cover-up of such actions through fabricated accomplishment reports, receipts and documents submitted to the Commission on Audit (COA) and deliberate obstruction of congressional investigation and oversight. It was endorsed by three left-leaning House Makabayan bloc members.

The third impeachment complaint was filed on Dec.19 by a group of lawyers and clergy, citing as grounds her misuse of CIF in both the OVP and DepEd. One Bicol solon and two more party-list representatives endorsed it.

All three complaints, however, were set aside and archived for not being “air-tight” cases to impeach VP Sara. Replaced with the House-prepared fourth impeach complaint, it naturally got the most number of votes as endorsement. Out of 306 House members, 215 or two-thirds – not just the required one-third – voted for the VP’s impeachment.

No less than the presidential son, senior deputy majority leader Ilocos Norte Rep. Sandro Marcos, was the first signatory in the House-prepared impeach complaint. The young Marcos dismissed the supposed public “surprise” on this. For him, he cited not public interest but his personal gripes. As far as he is concerned, it should not be surprising for him to stand up for both his parents as “kill” targets, as well as his late grandfather, ex-president Marcos Sr., whose remains at the Libingan ng mga Bayani VP threatened would be dug up and dumped in the West Philippine Sea.

The Articles of Impeachment were literally approved at the 11th hour before Congress adjourned for recess last Wednesday. Although officially transmitted that same day before Senate sessions started, the senators adjourned for recess that same night. Senate President Francis Escudero banged the gavel to signal the end of their last session day without officially taking note of the receipt of the impeachment complaint in their order of business.

Escudero remains under fire for not giving due course to the impeachment complaint. In fairness to the Senate chief, he previously declared – as early as December – that they will only start preparations for the possible impeachment trial against the Vice President should and when an impeachment complaint is formally submitted to them.

Meanwhile, the election campaign period officially begins tomorrow. But legislators have been on campaign mode long before to boost their respective candidacies in the coming May 12 national and local elections.

Lawyers in and out of politics and the legal academe continue arguing on their differing interpretation of Article XI Section 3 (4) of the Constitution. In particular, it provided that when the articles of impeachment are filed, “trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.” Some legal experts opined the word “shall” is a command while the word “forthwith” means immediately.

Escudero asserted the Senate can only tackle the impeachment complaint when they resume sessions from June 2 to 13 before the third and last regular session of the 19th Congress winds down sine die. The latin words sine die means the legislative body has concluded sessions without setting a day to reconvene. For lawmakers, sine die adjournment signifies time to go home.

Former Supreme Court senior associate justice Antonio Carpio commisserated with Escudero’s tight legislative calendar as reason to sit on for now the impeachment complaint. Carpio conceded there is simply “no more time” to hold an impeachment trial. Carpio concurred the senators could have taken it up before they adjourned had not the House of Representatives delayed the transmittal of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.

Carpio, however, rejected as constitutionally infirm for PBBM to convene a special session of Congress to accommodate the impeachment trial. Special session can only be called for enactment of laws, he pointed out. Given the time constraints, Carpio suggested the senators can accept “judicial affidavits” from the Articles of Impeachment. In this way, he explained, lesser time will be needed for direct testimonies.

Having once covered the legislature, I came to learn from certain Senate leaders in the past who toyed about “stopping the clock” to fully attend and complete pending urgent matters before Congress adjourns sine die. “Stopping the clock” is a legislative practice in American and Canadian parliamentary procedure in which the legislature literally or notionally stops the clock, or moves the hands of the clock backwards.

“Stopping the clock” is an option for the 19th Congress to meet the constitutional or statutory deadline in the impeachment case of VP Sara.