The seven issues resolved re: impeachment

The Supreme Court has enriched jurisprudence once again. That earthshaking decision promulgated three days before the SONA was a big headache and embarrassment of the Speaker, when his project to impeach the vice president was resoundingly rebuffed by the highest court of the land. The House violated the one-year bar and denied the vice president due process of law.

If I were the examiner in Political Law in this coming Bar Examinations in September, I would ask the aspirants who want to become lawyers these seven crucial questions formulated by the UP College of Law's 13th Dean, who wrote the decision in the landmark case of Sara Duterte vs. House and Senate promulgated last July 25. It was concurred in by 12 other Justices without any dissenting opinion. Justices Caguioa and Singh did not participate.

The first issue: Does the nature of impeachment proceedings allow the Supreme Court to exercise judicial review under Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution. The Court resolved this in the affirmative. Impeachment, albeit a political exercise, is also a legal process and involves an important Constitutional provision. The Supreme Court, being the ultimate interpreter of fundamental law. cannot be deprived of its inherent power to review any and all impeachment proceedings.

Second, whether the nature of impeachment proceedings fall within the ambit of the Court's expanded judicial review under the 1987 Constitution. This was likewise resolved affirmatively. Third, whether the House of Representatives complied with the requirements under Article XI, Section 3 (2), to refer the three impeachment complaints within three session days, from the time it was put on the agenda. The Court held that the House did not comply.

Fourth, whether the House complied with the same provision in relation to the fourth complaint. The Court held that it did but the filing of the fourth violated the one-year bar. Fifth, whether the House committed grave abuse of discretion when it verified the fourth complaint and transmitted the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The High Court said yes. There was a grave abuse of discretion by the House led by the Speaker.

Sixth, the issue was whether the House inaction on the first three complaints violated Article XI, Section 3 (5) and the one-year bar The Supreme Court said yes, there was a violation. Seventh, whether fourth impeachment violated the vice president's right to due process and her right to speedy disposition of cases under Article III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court said yes again.

There were other collateral issues that were discussed thoroughly by a learned jurist, senior associate Justice Mario Victor F Leonen. We do not have the space nor the time to go into finer details. I will reserve that for the classroom and for the bar review. Suffice it to say that Justice Leonen's magnum opus had the concurrence of 12 other members of the 15-man High Tribunal: Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, and Justices Ramon Paul Hernando, Amy C Lazaro-Javier, Henry jean Paul Inting, Rodil Zalameda, Samuel Gaerlan, Ricardo R Rosario, Jhosep Lopez, Japar B Dimaampao, Jose Midas Marquez, Antonio Kho Jr and Raul Villanueva.

I urge the barristers, the law professors and the bar reviewers to discuss this Decision thoroughly inside the classrooms and bar review centers. We can learn immensely from Justice Marvic Leonen. He happens to be my favorite Justice. I have written one volume all about his decisions in labor law and social legislations. He is one of the country's finest lawyers and professor of constitutional and political law.