THE Senate is 80 percent to 90 percent done with improved impeachment rules and is ready to try Chief Justice Maria Loudes Sereno, Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III said Tuesday.
In a TV interview, Pimentel said he still has a series of meetings to finalize the draft of the impeachment rules before they are submitted to the senators.
“Our rules are about 80 to 90 percent ready,” said Pimentel, noting that vague or ambiguous portions were made clearer.
“If there were rules which were not good during the impeachment trial of the late Chief Justice Renato Corona, and former President Joseph Estrada, we have to fix them to be clear,” Pimentel said.
He also said Sereno is not required to attend the impeachment trial, but if she wants to, she needs to prepare herself for cross examination.
Reacting to a quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida asking the Supreme Court to nullify Sereno’s appointment, Pimentel said this was not among the means available to remove an impeachable official.
“When we read the Constitutional provision, the message is that the only way to remove these high-ranking government officials who are so called impeachable officials is through impeachment,” he said.
But the Supreme Court on Tuesday required Sereno to comment within 10 days on the quo warranto petition against her.
“The Court, without giving due course to the petition, required respondent Chief Justice Sereno to submit her comment on the petition within a period of 10 days from receipt of notice,” a resolution read by Court spokesman Theodore Te said.
Only Associate Justice Marvic Leonen dissented from the action “on ground that in his opinion, the petition should be dismissed outright.”
Senator Panfilo Lacson declined to comment on the quo warranto petition and said it would be better to wait and see what the Supreme Court does.
Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon, on the other hand, said the petition was “a slippery slope” and could set a crucial precedent, one that could be detrimental to all impeachable officials.
“Let me express the apprehension that the moment the Supreme Court entertains and rules on this – that it has the power to, in effect, dismiss the Chief Justice–that the same rule applies to them,” he said.
“That same rule will apply to heads of various constitutional bodies, including the CoA [Commission on Audit], Comelec [Commission on Elections], the vice president, and even to the President,” he added.
Senator Antonio Trillanes IV said the Constitution is clear that the only means to remove justices of the Supreme Court is impeachment. He insisted that the quo warranto proceedings are prohibited.
He also warned that the justices that they would expose themselves to impeachment if they act on the quo warranto petition against Sereno because the act is unconstitutional.
“They have been forcing her to resign but she refused so this is now the shortcut,” Trillanes said. “They don’t want an impeachment because they cannot control what will happen.”
He acknowledged that Sereno was in danger and that it was clear she is very unpopular among the justices. But this did not mean they can do what is prohibited.
“They are the justices so they know the Constitution and they should not do what is unconstitutional,” he added.
Senator Paolo Benigno Aquino IV considered it alarming that the clear process indicated in the Constitution is being changed.
“They should just allow Congress, allow the Senate to do our job…. This changing of the process violates our Constitution and we need to take into account the proper procedures here,” he said.
Akbayan Senator Risa Hontiveros warned that the petition for quo warranto is an assault against the Senate’s integrity and democratic processes.
Hontiveros said that this could set a dangerous precedent where the Senate is relegated to the political sidelines.
“It is part of a greater scheme to render the Senate obsolete and irrelevant, when it is one of the few institutions left where the government’s abuses can still be checked,” Hontiveros said.
“Just imagine. If the Executive can impeach a Supreme Court Chief Justice without the Senate, it can also change the Constitution without it. It is no secret that this government is adamant in changing the Constitution even without the participation of the Senate,” Hontiveros said.
She also said the petition from the executive seems to question the capacity of the Senate to conduct fair ancd impartial impeachment proceedings.
“The onstitution is clear. The best way to hold accountable and remove impeachable high-ranking government officials is through the process of impeachment where the Senate is convened as an impeachment court,” Hontiveros said.
House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, meanwhile, said impeachment proceedings against Sereno would proceed despite the quo warranto petition filed against her at the Supreme Court.
Alvarez said an impeachment proceeding, an inherent power of Congress; and a quo warranto petition are two independent and legal courses of action to oust Sereno.
“Impeachment is an implied and exclusive power of Congress. It presupposes a valid appointment. The quo warranto petition, on the other hand, is a legal action to question the validity of appointment itself,” Alvarez said at a news conference.
Alvarez, who is expected to manage the 11-man prosecution panel for Sereno’s impeachment trial, also said the quo warranto petition filed by Calida would not weaken the power of Congress to impeach high-ranking public officials.
But if the high court decides in favor of the quo warranto petition, the impeachment proceedings against Sereno will stop.
House majority leader and Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas, on the other hand, said it would be prudent for the House to wait for the Supreme Court’s decision of the on the quo warranto case against Sereno before the impeachment case is acted upon in plenary.
“As chair of the committee on rules, I find it prudent for Congress to just wait for decision of the Supreme Court on the quo warranto petition. There is a serious challenge against the legitimacy of the officer in question, why still proceed with the impeachment? Why don’t we just wait for it?” Fariñas said.
“On or after May 14… that’s the soonest that we could take this up at the plenary and by May the Supreme Court decision is already done,” Fariñas added.
The House committee on justice will vote on the probable cause of the Sereno impeachment complaint on Thursday.
The committee report on the Sereno impeachment will then be submitted for plenary action next week, where it is expected to be adopted, together with the Articles of Impeachment.
Fariñas said May 14 is the earliest date that the House plenary could act on the matter depending on the action to be taken by the high court.
Congress goes on a Lenten break beginning March 23. It will resume sessions on May 14.
Also on Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition of Oliver Lozano, a known loyalist of the late President Ferdinand Marcos, for “failure to provide substantial allegations to justify a cause of action.”
On Monday, Calida asked the Supreme Cout to void the appointment Sereno in 2012 because she failed to comply with the eligibility requirements for the position.
In a petition, Calida also asked the Court to order Sereno’s removal from office for being a de facto official whose authority was hinged on an appointment that was void from the start.
He said Sereno did not meet the specific qualification of proven integrity for the chief justice post due to her failure to comply with the required submission of 10- SALNs.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court said it has accepted the resignation of the head of its Management Information System who testified against Sereno during impeachment hearing at the House of Representatives.
MISO acting chief Carlos Garay has submitted his resignation to the en banc effective Feb. 28.
“The Court en banc has accepted the irrevocable resignation of Garay,” a Court insider said.
Garay had testified at the House committee on justice that he did not approve the hiring by the Court of information technology expert Helen Macasaet, one of the alleged irregularities raised in the impeachment complaint filed against Sereno.
Garay said Macasaet’s service was not needed in the implementation of the Court’s multi-billion peso the Enterprise Information Systems Plan.
It was unclear why Garay resigned.
A group calling itself the Coalition for Justice said Tuesday the impeachment complaint was “a baseless and oppressive act to remove the independent head of the judiciary.”
“We stand with the chief justice and join her in her fight to defend the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law and our threatened democracy,” the group said in a statement.
