Azcuna: Senate action insures impeachment raps cross from 19th to 20th congresses
'I therefore find the novel and unprecedented step as an adoption of a unique but allowable procedure to insure a proper crossover of the same Articles of Impeachment from the 19th Congress to the 20th Congress,' Azcuna said.
The Senate impeachment court's move to return to the House of Representatives the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte was a unique but allowable step that "insured" the raps crossing over from the 19th to 20th congresses, retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna said on Wednesday.
Azcuna issued the statement on Facebook after the impeachment court voted to return to the House of Representatives without dismissing or terminating the impeachent case until such time that:
The House of Representatives certify to the non violation of Article XI, Section 3, paragraph 5 of the Constitution, which provides that 'No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within one year; include the circumstances on the filing of the first three impeachment complaints"; and
The House of Representatives of the 20th Congress communicates to the Senate that it is willing and ready to pursue the impeachment complaint against the Vice President.
"I first declined to comment as I find this as uncharted territory mainly for the reason that this never happened before. I then realized that this never happened before because this is the first time that an impeachment trial is caught between two Congresses and the case must cross over from one Congress to another.
'I therefore find the novel and unprecedented step as an adoption of a unique but allowable procedure to insure a proper crossover of the same Articles of Impeachment from the 19th Congress to the 20th Congress,' he added.
Azcuna was also a member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution. It was he who drafted Article XI, which dealt with the accountability of public officers, including impeachable officials.
"I also wrote the procedural Section including the word 'forthwith' referring to the need for the Senate to proceed to trial after the House itself adopts by one-third or more votes a resolution of impeachment which thereby constitutes the Articles of Impeachment such that 'trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed,' and it is precisely meant to mean immediately and without unreasonable delay or in the national language official version 'agad-agad'," Azcuna said.
Eighteen senator-judges voted for the motion to return the articles of impeachment to the House. Five voted against it.
The negative votes came from Minority Leader Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel III, Deputy Minority Leader Risa Hontiveros, Sen. Grace Poe, Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian, and Sen. Nancy Binay.
Those who voted yes include Escudero, Dela Rosa, Sen. Robin Padilla, Sen. Christopher Lawrence "Bong" Go, Senate Majority Leader Francis Tolentino, Sen. Imee Marcos, Sen. Cynthia Villar, Sen. Mark Villar, Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada, Sen. JV Ejercito, Sen. Ramon Revilla Jr., Sen. Joel Villanueva, Sen. Lito Lapid, Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, Sen. Pia Cayetano, Sen. Loren Legarda, Sen. Raffy Tulfo, and Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri.
The House on Wednesday night adopted House Resolution No. 2346, certifying that the impeachment complied with the 1987 Constitution.
The plenary, however, deferred the House's acceptance of the articles of impeachment while seeking a clarification from the Senate as regards its move.
"The all-important element is that the impeachment court has acquired jurisdiction over the case and is still on course to proceed to trial and decision without undue delay after the crossover," Azcuna said.
Likewise, former Integrated Bar of the Philippines president Domingo Cayosa does not see anything wrong with the Senate's action.
'There is no direct or clear violation naman kasi internal proseso na nila yan. What is important is it wont delay the trial which has happened,' he said in Joseph Morong's report in '24 Oras' on Wednesday.
However, Christian Monsod, who also authored the 1987 Constitution alongside Azcuna, believes that the move from the Senate only derailed the impeachment proceedings.
'Yes. Kasi that's not part of their powers. Kasi if there is a constitutionality issue, that's the Supreme Court…These people have another agenda other than obeying the mandate of the Constitution. Kasi self-executory 'yung Constitution eh,' he said.
'Nakalimutan yata nila that they are senators because the people voted them as senators, so they are senators of the people. They are not senators of Vice President Sara Duterte. Dapat mag-inhibit themselves if they have any integrity,' Monsod added.
For his part, University of the Philippines College of Law assistant professor Paolo Tamase agreed that the return of impeachment articles is unconstitutional.
'Dapat ma-offend yung House. Yung remand essentially seconds guesses yung House kung ano yung ginawa nya and puts the Senate higher. Co-equal sila, nirerespeto nila yung isa't isa,' he said.
(The House has the right to be offended. The remand essentially second guesses the action of the House and puts the Senate in a higher status. They should be co-equal, respecting each other.)
'Hindi naman kinukwestiyon ng Senado pag ang House nagpapasa ng bills sa kanila, kung sinunod ba ng House yung proseso nila. So bakit kinukwestiyon ng Senado ngayon kung sinunod ng House yung proseso nila sa pagpapasa ng impeachment complaint,' Tamase also said.
(The Senate does not question the House if there are bills referred to them or if the House followed their process. So why does the Senate now question the House if they followed the procedure in approving an impeachment complaint.)
However, Senate President Francis Escudero, who presides over the impeachment court, said that both chambers of Congress are not co-equal when it comes to the impeachment trial.
'Hindi kami pantay sa bagay na ito [...] 'Di ito parang bicam na kailangan mag-agree. Ito ay kautusan galing sa impeachment court na nakatuon sa prosecutor na isa lamang partido sa kaso,' he said.
(We are not on the same level when it comes to this matter [...] This is not like a bicam wherein we should both agree. This is an order from the impeachment court that implies that there is only one party to the case.)
Further, Monsod said that the 20th Congress can continue working on the impeachment trial.
'It should continue. Because ang argument ni Tolentino is that there is no quorum because unlike in the United States, there's always a quorum. 'Pag 12 lang, hindi quorum. Mali siya, right? Sabi ko, the term of office niya at tsaka those who are leaving expires at noon of June 30. And at noon of June 30, starts the term of the newly elected. So there's never only 12."
(It should continue. Because Tolentino's argument is that there is no quorum unlike in the United States that there's always a quorum. If there's only 12, there's no quorum. He's wrong on that part. His term and those who are leaving expires at noon of June 30 and by then, the term of the newly-elected senators starts. So there's never only 12.) –NB, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
8 hours ago
- GMA Network
Dela Rosa, Tolentino must inhibit as senator-judges in VP Sara impeachment trial —Monsod
One of the authors of the 1987 Constitution believes Senators Ronald 'Bato' dela Rosa and Francis Tolentino should inhibit themselves from sitting as senator-judges after they sought to dismiss the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte. According to Ian Cruz's report in '24 Oras' on Thursday, lawyer Christian Monsod said the two senators must recuse themselves from the impeachment trial following statements both have made. 'I think they should, Senator Bato and Senator Tolentino, they should think about recusing themselves…The source of legitimacy is independence. If they're incapable of independent thinking, I think they should withdraw and say, you know, we're not participating,' he said. Dela Rosa earlier called for the dismissal of the impeachment complaint even without undergoing trial. 'I respectfully move that in view of constitutional infirmities and questions on the jurisdiction and authority of the 20th Congress, the verified impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte be dismissed,' he said. Meanwhile, Tolentino said the trial is considered 'functionally dismissed' if it extends beyond June 30. 'If we cannot conclude the trial before June 30, 2025, we must recognize this impeachment case as functionally dismissed by constitutional operation,' he said. GMA Integrated News reached out to Tolentino for comment. Dela Rosa, on the other hand, said he will not inhibit from participating in the impeachment trial as he does not see anything wrong with their call for its dismissal. For his part, former Integrated Bar of the Philippines national president Domingo Cayosa said the impeachment court is different from the regular courts. 'Dito ho kasi sa Senate impeachment court is a class by itself. They have their own rules,' he said. Cayosa added that inhibiting someone from acting as senator-judge in the trial won't be easy. 'Maaari pero pagbobotohan nila 'yan ulit and it will be very contentious. Wala kasing specific provision doon, unlike the rules of court and many other rules of administrative bodies,' he said. (They can vote on that and it will be very contentious. Because there's no specific provision on that unlike the rules of court and many other rules of administrative bodies.) But Senate President Francis 'Chiz' Escudero said that they cannot stop anyone if he decides to inhibit from the impeachment trial. 'Desisyon nila kung magi-inhibit o magre-recuse sila. Hindi 'yan subject matter of vote…Walang ganoong klaseng procedure o proseso sa impeachment court man o sa regular court,' he said. (That's their decision if they will inhibit or recuse. That's should not be a subject matter of vote…There's no such procedure whether in the impeachment court or in the regular court.) In the event a senator allied with Duterte inhibits from the trial, Paulo Tamase of the University of the Philippines College of Law said, 'Ang requirement sa Saligang Batas is two-thirds of all of the members of the Senate. Majority is based on who votes, that is a rule that applies to the courts. Halimbawa, may mag-recuse na isa, 22 na lang ba bibilangin natin o out of 24. Hindi 'yan klaro sa Saligang Batas. Possible naman na may mag-recuse talaga.' (The requirement under the Constitution is there should be two-thirds of the members of the Senate. So the majority is based on who votes and that applies to the courts. For example, someone recused, so does it mean we only have 22 out of 24. That was not clear in the Constitution. But it's really possible that someone would recuse.) —Vince Angelo Ferreras/RF, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
11 hours ago
- GMA Network
Senate OKs priority bills before adjourning sine die
Several legislative priorities of the Marcos administration were ratified by the Senate before the 19th Congress adjourned sine die on Wednesday night. These included the bicameral conference committee reports on the Enhanced Fiscal Regime for Large-Scale Metallic Mining Act and the Accelerated and Reformed Right-of-Way (ARROW) Act, which were both listed as 'top priority' measures of the Legislative-Executive Development Council (LEDAC). The ratified bicam report on the Enhanced Fiscal Regime for Large-Scale Metallic Mining Act came from Senate Bill No. 2826 and House Bill No. 8937. According to Senator JV Ejercito, the reconciled version allows a five percent royalty based on gross output on mines operating within mineral reservation and a 5-tier royalty rate ranging from one percent to five percent based on margin from metallic mining operations for those outside mineral reservations. With the reforms in large-scale mining, the senator believes the government would benefit from an additional P6 billion worth of revenues. Senator Risa Hontiveros, however, opposed the measure, saying that it rejected amendments on increasing royalties for indigenous communities affected by mining, and imposing an export tax to fund the National Industrialization Program. Meanwhile, the ARROW Act was ratified by the upper chamber through the bicam report on the disagreeing provisions of Senate Bill No. 2821 and House Bill No. 6571. Senator Mark Villar, sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said that the measure is important in addressing the right-of-way issues that delay government infrastructure projects. 'Many projects have failed to meet their target completion dates due to unresolved right-of-way delays. Given these challenges, we welcome the amendment of the existing right-of-way law. The ARROW Act introduces key reforms to make the law more responsive to the evolving infrastructure landscape,' Villar said. The Senate also ratified the bicam report seeking to extend the term of barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) officials to four years. The report also postpones the 2025 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections from December 2025 to the first Monday of November 2026 Also ratified by the Senate on Wednesday night were bicam reports on the following: Judiciary Fiscal Autonomy Act (Senate Bill No. 2982 and House Bill No. 11358); An Act amending Sections 134 and 168 of Republic Act No. 8424, otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended (Senate Committee Report No. 581 and House Bill No. 10535); Philippine Nuclear Energy Safety Act (Senate Bill No. 2899 and House Bill No. 9293); and Career Progression System for Public School Teachers and School Leaders Act (Senate Bill No. 3000 and House Bill No. 10270) — BM, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
12 hours ago
- GMA Network
Senate 'killed' wage hike bill, says House spokesperson
'Let's not sugarcoat it—the Senate killed the P200 wage hike bill. Last night was the final session of the 19th Congress. No bicam, no compromise, no wage hike,' Abante said. A spokesperson for the House of Representatives on Thursday blamed the Senate for the failure of the 19th Congress to pass a legislated wage hike despite passage of the measure in both houses. In a video message, House spokesperson Atty. Princess Abante claimed that the Senate 'killed' the House bill that would grant a P200 wage hike, which was approved by the lower chamber on third and final reading last Wednesday, June 4. The Senate passed a P100 wage hike law more than a year earlier in February 2024. 'Let's not sugarcoat it—the Senate killed the P200 wage hike bill. Last night was the final session of the 19th Congress. No bicam, no compromise, no wage hike,' Abante said. 'And the reason is simple—ayaw ng Senado makipag-usap. Ang gusto nila, tanggapin na lang ng tao ang P100 nila. Bakit? Bakit binabarya ng Senado ang mga manggagawa?' (And the reason is simple—the Senate does not want to talk about it. What they want is for the people to accept their P100 wage hike version. Why is the Senate being stingy to the workers?) The 19th Congress adjourned sine die on Wednesday night. The legislated increase in the minimum wage needs to be refiled and again go through the legislative process in the 20th Congress. Sen. Joel Villanueva, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor, Employment and Human Resources Development, wrote the House a letter and asked that it adopt Senate Bill No. 2534, or the "P100 Daily Minimum Wage Increase Act of 2024," as approved by the Senate on third reading in February 2024, in substitution of House Bill No. 11376, as approved by the House on third reading on June 4. Rizal Rep. Fidel Nograles, the chairman of the House Committee on Labor on Employment, in a letter addressed to Villanueva, asked for the immediate convening of the bicameral conference committee on June 11 to reconcile both versions of the wage hike bill before the 19th Congress adjourns sine die. 'The House strongly prefers a transparent and deliberative bicameral process, rather than being bamboozled into accepting the Senate version wholesale, without discussion or compromise,' Nograles said. Abante said the bicam conferees from the House were 'ready to sit down, they were ready to defend the P200 proposal, and fight for labor, only to find out that the Senate had no intention of meeting at all.' 'We were ready to deliberate. We came in good faith. But what the Senate gave us was a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum. Wala silang balak makipag-usap. Ang gusto nila, susunod lang kami sa gusto nila. [The Senate had no intention to talk with us, what they wanted was for us to follow what they wanted]. That's not how democracy works,' the House spokesperson said. She also maintained that the House bill was not a reckless proposal, but a 'responsible, well-considered measure.' 'But instead of a dialogue, ang binalik sa amin ay tahimik na pagtanggi at pagmamadali. The people deserve accountability. Hindi ito pagkukulang ng Kamara. Ginawa namin ang aming trabaho namin, pero ang Senado, iniwan sa ere ang manggagawa,' Abante continued. (But instead of a dialogue, the Senate gave us silence and haste. The people deserve accountability. This is not a shortcoming of the House. We did our job, but the Senate left the workers hanging.) GMA News Online sought a comment from Villanueva and Senate President Francis 'Chiz' Escudero regarding the matter, and will update this story once they respond. In an earlier interview, Escudero compared the House's wage hike bill to its transmittal of the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte. "'Yong impeachment pinadala niyo huling araw na lang ng sesyon namin, ito gan'on din huling mga araw ng mga sesyon naming tapos ayan na naman kayo, mamadaliin niyo na naman kami na parang kami ang may kasalanan," Escudero said. "Pinasa naming itong wage hike na one hundred pesos January o February 2024, mahigit isang taon nilang inupuan ito. Tapos bigla ngayon sila 'yong gigil na gigil at nagmamadali. May proseso kung gusto Talaga nilang i-adopt 'yong bersyon ng Senado. Simpleng mosyon 'yan sa Plenaryo ng Kamara," he added. (You sent the impeachment on the last day of the session. In this case, you sent the wage hike bill in the last few days of the session and again want us to hurry, making it appear that it is our fault. We passed the P100 wage hike in January or February 2024, and they sat on the measure for more than. a year. And now they are pressing us to move in a hurry. If they want to adopt the Senate version, all it takes is a motion in the House plenary.) Villanueva had expressed concern regarding the House's version of the bill as it might get vetoed by President Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos Jr. if adopted by the Senate. Malacañang said President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. will look into the economic implications of the proposed increase in the minimum wage. Escudero said on Monday that the measures seeking an increase in the daily minimum wage of workers is not a priority of the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC). –NB, GMA Integrated News
