No issue with House refusal of Sara Duterte lawyers' papers, says prosecution spokesman
Reginald Tongol (left) and Antonio Bucoy. - Photo from Regie Tongol & Associates Law and Communications Facebook page and video screengrab
MANILA: The House of Representatives' decision not to receive the entry of appearance made by Vice President Sara Duterte's lawyers for the impeachment trial should not result in any issue, prosecution spokesman Antonio Bucoy said.
In his first-ever press briefing held on Tuesday (June 17), Bucoy was asked why the House supposedly refused to receive the entry of appearance sent by the defence counsel on Monday (June 16) afternoon.
Bucoy admitted that he does not know the exact reason, but noted that this should not be an issue, because the phrase 'tender copy refuse to receive' indicates that it was as if the document was received.
'I would like to clarify. I do not know the reason why. But the bottom line is that nobody was hurt, there was no damage. Because when they tendered the service of the entry of appearance, tender means you are constructively served. So, regardless of whether they accept it or not, the purpose was served because it was tendered. So as if you received it,' he explained.
''When it is tendered, the document is left with the chamber. The term 'tender' was used because they did not acknowledge that they had already received it. Nonetheless, like what I said, no harm, no foul. Nobody was hurt here, nobody was aggrieved,' he added.
According to Bucoy, he is not sure whether the recent circumstances surrounding the impeachment proceedings have led to an impediment — which may be a reason why the House did not receive the entry of appearance.
'Now I do not know if there was an impediment or none that's why the entry was not accepted, or what is the exact reason why it was not accepted. But like I said earlier, no harm, no foul because the service […] was tendered so as if it was received. There is no damage,' he added.
On Monday night, Senate impeachment court spokesperson Reginald Tongol confirmed that Duterte's counsel has entered its appearance, with 16 lawyers defending her — including those from the Fortun Narvasa & Salazar law firm.
However, Tongol said that the House was 'indicated in page 3 to have been copy furnished as well today at 3.42pm, but has a note 'Tender Copy refuse to receive.''
Tongol said in an interview with DZMM on Tuesday that the House's refusal to accept the document may delay the impeachment proceedings.
Duterte was impeached last February 5, after 215 lawmakers filed and signed a verified impeachment complaint against her. The articles of impeachment were immediately sent to the Senate as the Article XI, Section 3(4) of the 1987 Constitution states that a trial should proceed forthwith if one-thirds of House members file the complaint.
As one-third of 306 House members is 102, the requirement was fulfilled. However, trial did not start as the articles of impeachment were not sent to the Senate plenary before session adjourned for the election season break.
And when the proceedings were supposed to start last June 3, the Senate eventually approved a motion to remand the articles back to the House, due to alleged constitutional infirmities.
The House prosecution team, however, said that they will defer acceptance of the returned articles, and will file a motion seeking clarification as one of the Senate's requests — a certification from the 20th Congress that they will pursue the impeachment — cannot be complied with now.
Duterte's impeachment was hinged on different issues, like allegations of confidential fund misuse within her offices which were uncovered during the hearing of the House committee on good government and public accountability, and threats to have President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and Romualdez assassinated. - Philippine Daily Inquirer/ANN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
10 hours ago
- The Star
Thai defence minister dodges question on blacklisting Hun Sen, urges unity and political stability
BANGKOK: Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Phumtham Wechayachai (pic) on Friday (June 20) addressed the recent developments within the coalition government following the release of a leaked audio clip between Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Hun Sen, former Prime Minister and President of the Cambodian Senate. Phumtham stated that the PM will coordinate and discuss the issue, as she is both the party leader and head of government. He explained that the current situation, with the political tensions caused by the leaked audio, is not something that would result in the PM's resignation or a dissolution of the government at this time. 'The government has not resigned or been dissolved. As such, the focus is now on adjusting the Cabinet. The Prime Minister's office will remain in place, with only Bhumjaithai leaving the coalition. Other parties will continue to work together as we adjust our efforts accordingly,' Phumtham said. When asked about the political parties' ongoing support for Paetongtarn, he responded: 'Yes, they continue to support her.' He also affirmed his confidence in the remaining coalition parties, saying that they are still committed. On the issue of the call for Paetongtarn to resign, Phumtham mentioned: 'I believe those involved have already spoken with the Prime Minister, and there is no issue. Everyone has heard the clip and understands there's no real problem. It's a diplomatic negotiation technique. There's always a push and pull in diplomacy. "If you listen to the audio, there's nothing wrong with it. It was simply a conversation, and there's no indication of anything that would warrant legal charges or create any issues. I've already spoken with the Commander of the 2nd Army Region, and there are no problems, so everyone can feel at ease.' - The Nation/ANN
The Star
16 hours ago
- The Star
Seah Kian Peng to be nominated again as Speaker of Singapore Parliament; Indranee Rajah will remain Leader of the House
SINGAPORE: Seah Kian Peng will be nominated for re-election as Speaker of Parliament when the House reopens on Sept 5, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) said on Friday (June 20). He is the current Speaker and has served in the role since 2023. Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Indranee Rajah has been designated by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong as Leader of the House, the PMO added in its statement. Senior Minister of State for Defence and Sustainability and the Environment Zaqy Mohamad will remain Deputy Leader. In a letter to the Clerk of Parliament – the most senior official in the secretariat supporting the House – PM Wong said the Government will propose Seah's election and that he has designated Indranee and Zaqy for their roles. In a Facebook post on the same day, PM Wong added that Seah has since 2023 brought 'a steady hand and thoughtful leadership to the House'. PM Wong said: 'He has presided over our debates with fairness and ensured that proceedings are conducted with dignity and decorum. I am confident he will continue to discharge his responsibilities with distinction.' In a Facebook post after the announcement, Seah thanked the Prime Minister for his confidence, support and nomination. He added that he is grateful for the support of MPs past and present, and thanked his two deputies and colleagues from the Parliament Secretariat. Seah is assisted by two Deputy Speakers, Christopher de Souza and Jessica Tan. Deputy Speakers, who take over when the Speaker is absent, are also elected when a new Parliament sits. He said: 'If elected, I will as always endeavour to do my best and discharge my duties and responsibilities to the best of my ability.' Zaqy, who is also an MP for Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC, told The Straits Times that he is thankful for PM Wong's trust in him. He added that with a renewed slate of MPs, including many first-time parliamentarians from both the PAP and the opposition, a broader range of perspectives and voices in the House can be expected. He said: 'We probably have about 20-30 per cent new MPs in Parliament this round, and I hope that this diversity will bring fresh energy and ideas to our national conversations.' Singapore elected 97 MPs at the polls, and two Non-Constituency MPs were later appointed from the Workers' Party. Of these, 29 are rookies. Zaqy added that many MPs were elected campaigning on various concerns and issues such as cost of living, jobs and economic uncertainty amid global tensions. 'Alongside these bread-and-butter issues, we'll also need to tackle longer-term challenges such as climate change, social mobility and ageing. Looking forward to a robust and constructive parliamentary term ahead,' he said. There are no term limits for both the Speaker and the Leader of the House. The Speaker is in charge of the administration of Parliament and its secretariat, and presides over its conduct. He or she decides who has the right to speak and puts the question for the House to debate and vote on. The Speaker also acts as the representative of the House in its relations with other Parliaments and welcomes visiting dignitaries. He or she represents Parliament at national events and during official visits abroad. The Leader of the House is responsible for arranging government business and the legislative programme of Parliament, and proposes appropriate actions to be taken on procedural matters arising in Parliament. He or she also moves procedural motions, such as to extend the times of sittings beyond the usual. For example, during her term as Leader, Indranee has addressed and issued notes on MPs' behaviour, and wrapped up or extended debates on key issues like the Budget and the 14th Parliament's handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. Seah, who is an MP for Marine Parade-Braddell Heights GRC, has served as Speaker since 2023. He was nominated and elected following the resignation of the previous Speaker, Tan Chuan-Jin, after an affair he had with fellow MP Cheng Li Hui was made public. Indranee, who is also Second Minister for Finance and National Development and an MP for Pasir Ris-Changi GRC, has been Leader of the House since 2020. She took over from Minister for Sustainability and the Environment Grace Fu. The opening of a new Parliament following a general election traditionally begins with the election of the Speaker. In 2025, this will happen on Sept 5, following the polls held on May 3. The MPs will then be sworn in, and President Tharman Shanmugaratnam is scheduled to deliver an address to the 15th Parliament. The President's Address will set out the agenda and plans of the Government for its five-year term. - The Straits Times/ANN
Free Malaysia Today
a day ago
- Free Malaysia Today
The real roots of judicial power in Malaysia
In the English legal tradition, judicial power is understood as the authority of courts to adjudicate disputes, interpret statutes and common law, and provide remedies. It includes the power to review executive actions for legality and, in some cases, to develop the common law through precedent. However, English courts do not possess the authority to strike down legislation—a limitation that distinguishes their role from that of courts in constitutional democracies like Malaysia. Malaysia's judiciary, while inheriting many functions from the English system, is constitutionally empowered to go further. Our courts do not only interpret and apply the law but also possess the authority to invalidate legislation, constitutional amendments, or executive actions that contravene the Federal Constitution. This power is not derived from Article 4(1) or Article 121(1) alone, but fundamentally from the Oath of Office taken by judges—a jurisprudential foundation that has been underdeveloped and underappreciated since independence. Article 4(1) declares the constitution as the supreme law of the Federation. However, it does not, in itself, confer judicial power. Rather, it sets the constitutional framework within which all branches of government must operate. The true source of judicial power lies in the solemn Oath of Office undertaken by judges, which binds them to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. This oath is not ceremonial—it is constitutional in nature and substance. Similarly, members of the legislature and executive are also bound by their respective oaths to uphold the constitution. When any law, amendment or executive act violates Article 4(1), it is the judiciary's constitutional duty—rooted in their oath—to strike it down. This is not judicial activism; it is judicial fidelity to constitutional supremacy. The Federal Court's decision in Dato Yap Peng v Public Prosecutor (1987) exemplified this principle. In that case, the court struck down a legislative provision as unconstitutional, affirming its role as guardian of the constitution. In response, Parliament amended Article 121(1) in 1988, removing the explicit vesting of judicial power in the High Courts and instead stating that courts shall have such jurisdiction and powers 'as may be conferred by or under federal law'. This amendment was widely interpreted as a curtailment of judicial power. For over two decades, the legal community operated under the assumption that the judiciary's constitutional authority had been diminished. Yet this interpretation overlooked a critical truth: judicial power in Malaysia does not originate from legislative grace. It is constitutionally embedded through the oath of office and the foundational structure of the constitution itself. Calls to amend Article 121(1) to 'restore' judicial power—such as those made by a former law minister—are therefore misplaced. If the 1988 amendment was intended to strip the courts of their constitutional authority, it was a sterile move. Judicial power, like legislative and executive power, flows from the constitution and is anchored in the oaths taken by officeholders. No statutory amendment can override that constitutional reality. My own judicial tenure allowed me to explore and articulate what I call the 'Oath of Office Jurisprudence.' This framework situates judicial power within the broader architecture of constitutional supremacy and the rule of law. It draws from established principles of judicial review and affirms that the judiciary's role is not to dominate, but to safeguard the constitutional order. Unlike the 'basic structure' doctrine developed in India, which courts have used to limit parliamentary power, Malaysia's oath-based jurisprudence avoids judicial hegemony while still providing robust constitutional protection. In my view, the use of the basic structure doctrine to challenge the constitutionality of laws which touch on shariah issues is flawed jurisprudence. In contrast, the oath of office jurisprudence offers a superior route to ensuring that constitutional functionaries and federal and state laws fall in line with the intentions of our founding fathers. Indeed, judicial hegemony—the idea that courts should wield unchecked power—was rejected as early as the Magna Carta in 1215. Our constitutional framers were equally cautious. They ensured that the responsibility to uphold the constitution rests not solely with the judiciary, but with all four pillars of the state: the executive, legislature, judiciary, and the Malay rulers. My contributions to this jurisprudence, including judgments such as Aluma Mark Chinonso, have helped crystallise the parameters of judicial power consistent with the constitution. Since 2017, a series of Federal Court decisions have reaffirmed the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, effectively burying the notion that judicial power was ever truly removed. It is time for Malaysian jurists to invest in developing this uniquely Malaysian jurisprudence. As the late Justice Gopal Sri Ram observed, the oath of office framework introduces a new dimension to the rule of law. It compels all branches of government to banish arbitrariness and act within constitutional bounds. It also offers a broader and more integrated foundation for constitutional review than the imported basic structure doctrine. If embraced, this approach could restore judicial review to its rightful place—not as a 'disabled creature with a thousand tongues and no teeth', but as a principled and effective check on arbitrary power. Doing so would strengthen the rule of law and advance the cause of social justice in Malaysia. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
