logo
Makati Business Club, MAP join call for SC to reverse ruling on Sara's impeachment

Makati Business Club, MAP join call for SC to reverse ruling on Sara's impeachment

GMA Network19 hours ago
The country's most influential business organizations, Makati Business Club (MBC) and Management Association of the Philippines (MAP), have joined legal and judicial advocates in calling on the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the House of Representatives' appeal to reverse its decision declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional.
'We join a nation hopeful that the Supreme Court shall steadfastly resume its role in defending the Constitution that the Filipino people have ratified at a pivotal time in our history,' the MBC, MAP, Integrity Initiative, and Justice Reform Initiative said in a joint statement on Friday.
'We beg the Court to guard against the erosion of the constitutional design that can set aside the people's sovereign will. Our fidelity must always be to the principle that no one stands above the Constitution, and no government official is supreme over the Filipino people they are sworn to faithfully serve,' the groups said.
The House has filed a motion for reconsideration asking the high court to reverse its ruling junking the impeachment case against the Vice President, saying it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate's to try the case.
In its appeal before the high tribunal, the House argued that the fourth impeachment complaint, signed off by 215 House members, is the only initiated impeachment case against the Vice President because it met the Constitutional requirement of the complaint being endorsed by at least one-third of the House members, which allowed the House to transmit the Articles of Impeachment straight to the Senate en route to the impeachment trial, bypassing Committee deliberations.
Voting 13-0, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, deeming that the Articles of Impeachment are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution. Moreover, the magistrates ruled that the articles violate the right to due process.
The MBC, MAP, Integrity Initiative, and Justice Reform Initiative said the 'decision of the [Supreme] Court as it stands sends a dangerous signal throughout the bureaucracy that abuse of power and corruption carry no consequence.'
'If we fail to hold the highest officials of the land accountable, how can we expect accountability from those below them?'
The groups argued that the appeal filed by the lower chamber 'merits reconsideration,' due to the following:
'Deemed Initiated' is not in the Constitution
One-year bar not triggered
Venue for due process is specific
Impeachment is to protect the people
The groups explained that the high court treated the first three complaints as 'deemed dismissed' triggering the one-year bar for the initiation of the next impeachment, but, in effect, 'treated the first three complaints (counted as one) as 'deemed initiated' as well.'
'For how can there be a succeeding impeachment initiation to bar if the first has not even been initiated? This deeming effect rests on no Constitutional text because whenever the charter desires that legal effect, it states so expressly, such as on: who are 'deemed natural-born citizens' (Article IV, Section 2) ; who are 'deemed to have renounced citizenship' (Article IV, Section 4); 'deemed re-enacted' budget (Article VI, Section 25[7]); 'deemed certified' special election bill (Article VII, Section 10); 'deemed submitted for decision' (Article VIII, Section 15[2]; Article IX, Section 7); 'deemed lifted' freeze order (Article XVIII, Section 26[3]),' the groups said.
'If the framers of the Constitution intended that inaction by the House shall make an impeachment 'deemed initiated,' it would have been so indicated like the rest of the provisions above stated,' they added.
With this, the groups said the Supreme Court, in its decision has said that 'complaints not properly endorsed by a member of the House within a reasonable period, even if dismissed, does not trigger the one-year bar.'
They said that, 'in the same breath, the Court deems inaction by the House as a dismissal that triggers the one-year bar.'
'This, we submit, stands in tension with the Court's own reasoning: in both cases, the House did not act and yet there are different legal effects.'
The MBC, MAP, Integrity Initiative, and Justice Reform Initiative said, moreover, said that the 'venue for due process is specific' as 'impeachment is neither a criminal nor administrative proceeding,' adding that 'it is a sui generis process for which the Constitution provides specific venues for due process: in the Committee on Justice for the first mode of impeachment (by verified complaint endorsed by a member of the House); or at the Senate Trial for the second mode (Impeachment by direct resolution transmitted to the Senate).'
'The Senate by stopping the impeachment initiated through the second mode, and the Court by its decision in this case as it stands, unfortunately prevented due process from happening,' the groups said.
The groups further said that 'impeachment is to protect the people,' citing the Article XI, 'Accountability of Public Officers', of the Constitution which provides that the impeachment process exists to serve the public and 'not to shield a government official from the rigors of defending himself or herself, but to safeguard the people's right to demand accountability from those who wield authority supposedly on their behalf.'
The groups stressed that 'without accountability, the government loses trust.'
The MBC, MAP, Integrity Initiative, and Justice Reform Initiative said that if the high court's ruling is 'uncorrected,' it 'will institutionalize the flaws in our rule of law.'
'The impact is not only political, it's also economic. When investor confidence retracts, when costs of doing business rise, when the supply chain struggles, invariably, it's the consumers, the people, who will pay the price. Everyone needlessly suffers - as our history as a nation repeatedly taught us,' the groups said. — BAP, GMA Integrated News
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Sara Duterte traveled to Kuwait to visit Filipino community — OVP
Sara Duterte traveled to Kuwait to visit Filipino community — OVP

GMA Network

time25 minutes ago

  • GMA Network

Sara Duterte traveled to Kuwait to visit Filipino community — OVP

Vice President Sara Duterte traveled to Kuwait on Friday to visit the Filipino community in the Middle Eastern country, her office said Saturday. In a statement, the Office of the Vice President (OVP) said Duterte flew to Kuwait to join Filipinos there for a gathering to discuss concerns and issues impacting their sector. "As part of the Vice President's mandate to represent and advocate for the welfare of all Filipinos, including those overseas, it is essential that she remains actively engaged with the Filipino migrant communities wherever they may be," the OVP said. "She will then proceed to continue working on the release of our former head of state Rodrigo Duterte who was forcibly taken from Philippine soil," it added. The OVP stressed that Duterte's official engagements are conducted in full compliance with existing government rules and regulations, ensuring that her presence abroad is both lawful and aligned with her responsibilities in public service. "In addition, no public funds are used for all her travels overseas," the Vice President's office said. Moreover, the statement added that Vice President's office, along with its 10 satellite offices across the country, "remains ready to serve and assist our fellow Filipinos both here and abroad, despite limitations in capacity and budget." Malacañang has criticized Duterte for defending her foreign trips and for saying that Filipino communities abroad were supposedly frustrated with the country's state. Palace Press Office Undersecretary Atty. Claire Castro said Duterte's "personal trips" abroad would not solve the country's problems. She added that it was not the duty of the Vice President to lash out and discredit President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. In a recent interview, Duterte explained why she has been traveling abroad in recent months. 'Lumalabas ako ng bansa dahil frustrated na ang Filipino communities abroad sa nangyayari dito sa ating bayan. At pangalawa, bumibisita ako sa tatay ko na nakakulong,' she added. (I go outside the country because Filipino communities abroad are frustrated with what's happening in our country. Secondly, I visit my detained father.) — VDV, GMA Integrated News

Philippine Consulate in New York confirms some Filipinos denied entry at U.S. Borders
Philippine Consulate in New York confirms some Filipinos denied entry at U.S. Borders

GMA Network

time14 hours ago

  • GMA Network

Philippine Consulate in New York confirms some Filipinos denied entry at U.S. Borders

Officials from the Philippine Consulate in New York, led by Consul General Senen T. Mangalile (center), addressed the media on border entry issues and provided guidance for undocumented Filipinos in the U.S. Photo by Dave LLavanes Jr. NEW YORK - The Philippine Consulate General in New York has confirmed that some Filipino travelers are denied entry at U.S. borders, often due to discrepancies in travel documents or past criminal records. Speaking during the Consulate's 'Media Hour,' New York Consul General Senen Mangalile said that in some cases, travelers' visas did not match the purpose they stated during border interviews. 'Some of them have visas that do not match what was revealed during the border interview. For example, they may have tourist visas but are suspected of planning to work. Others are turned away because of past criminal records. I'm not saying they were necessarily imprisoned, but there were items in their record that the Customs and Border Protection officers discovered. These are usually the two main reasons travelers are turned away at the border,' Mangalile explained. At present, less than ten cases are being monitored within the Consulate's jurisdiction. The Consulate is coordinating with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on the case of two Filipino detainees from Boston and Philadelphia, who have already served prison sentences and are now awaiting deportation proceedings. 'Thousands of individuals of all nationalities are being deported, and our kababayan are among them. It will take time. Deportation is a costly process. They need to purchase tickets, and in some cases, ICE officers have to escort people. Some flights may even have to be chartered. So, even if our kababayan offer to undergo voluntary deportation, once they are already in the system, they will have to wait for their turn to be removed from the country,' Mangalile said. Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) spokesperson Angelica Escalona, in a separate interview, said she will ask for the verification of the information that there are Filipinos are being denied entry in U.S. borders. The Consulate, through the DFA, has funds to assist in the voluntary deportation of Filipinos, but these are available only on a case-by-case basis. 'I believe the DFA's position is very clear — it will be on a case-by-case basis. If there is no threat to the person's life or welfare, I don't think the government should shoulder the cost,' Mangalile clarified. The Consulate's Assistance-to-Nationals (ATN) section has also reported an increase in inquiries about voluntary departure. Callers are advised to consult the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) website, which outlines the process. According to DHS guidelines, undocumented immigrants without criminal records are encouraged to leave the country voluntarily to improve their chances of being accepted should they wish to return in the future. Mangalile reiterated the call of Philippine Ambassador to the U.S. Jose Manuel Romualdez for undocumented Filipinos to assess their options. 'I will reiterate what the ambassador said before all of this began. First, if you no longer have any hope of obtaining proper status and legal residency here in the United States, one of your options is to return to the Philippines. Going back to the Philippines is as simple as buying a ticket and boarding a plane," said Mangalile. "If your passport is not updated, you can come to us. If your passport has complications, then one option for you is to obtain a travel document and process your passport once you are in the Philippines. The advantage of this is that you will be going home without being arrested and therefore, theoretically, you will have the ability to return to the United States in the future — this is if you truly have no hope and no legal claim whatsoever," he added. The Consul General also said that "Now, if you see a basis to remain here in the United States, then that is something you will need to decide on, but what can truly help you is an immigration lawyer. We regret, as the Philippine government, that we cannot provide immigration lawyers for all those without legal status here in the United States.' — with a report from Michaela del Callar/BAP, GMA Integrated News

SC upholds Senate subpoena vs. Alice Guo
SC upholds Senate subpoena vs. Alice Guo

GMA Network

time19 hours ago

  • GMA Network

SC upholds Senate subpoena vs. Alice Guo

The Supreme Court (SC) announced Friday that it upheld the subpoena issued by a Senate committee requiring dismissed Bamban, Tarlac Mayor Alice Guo to testify. Last year, the Senate Committee on Women, Children, Family Relations, and Gender Equality conducted an inquiry into the alleged illegal Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator (POGO) activities in Bamban and required Gou's presence. In July 2024, Guo asked the SC to annul and set aside the subpoena. The last Senate hearing was held in November 2024. In a statement, the SC said the committee hearings followed the 1987 Constitution and the Senate Rules of Procedure. The SC said that Guo's rights were not violated and the inquiry was a legitimate exercise of legislative power to protect public interest and uphold the law. It cited Article VI, Section 21 of the Constitution, which states that the Senate and its committees can conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, provided that the established rules are followed and the rights of persons involved are respected. 'The SC found that the Committee's investigation into illegal POGO operations in Bamban, Tarlac was within its authority. The questions asked about Guo's identity, family, relationships, assets, and businesses were relevant and necessary to the inquiry,' it said in a statement. Further, the SC said that Guo was invited as a resource person and not an accused. 'On privacy concerns, the SC noted that public officials have a limited expectation of privacy when their actions involve official functions or matters of national interest,' it said. 'Documents such as Guo's birth certificate, SALNs, and business records were essential to the investigation and thus lawfully disclosed, even under the Data Privacy Act of 2012,' it added. Contempt Meanwhile, the SC affirmed that citing individuals for contempt is a part of the Senate's legislative powers. Guo is facing a qualified trafficking case before a Pasig court, a graft case before a Valenzuela court, and a material misrepresentation case before a Tarlac court. A quo warranto petition was also filed against Guo with a Manila court, as well as a petition to cancel her birth certificate before a Tarlac court. — RSJ, GMA Integrated News

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store