Says magistrates did not clear VP Sara of wrongdoing
PRESIDENT Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., yesterday said that the Supreme Court’s decision on the impeachment case addressed only procedural issues and had no bearing on its merits, even as impeachment proponents raised the option of seeking the ouster of the magistrates.
“We have to make very, very clear to everyone that the Supreme Court decision does not have any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the merits of the impeachment case. They’re not saying that there was no wrongdoing,” he told reporters in a press conference before leaving India.
“Neither are they saying there was wrongdoing. All they’re saying is you did not handle it properly. That’s it,” Mr. Marcos added.
The President emphasized that the matter rests solely with the judiciary and the legislature, noting that the executive branch has no role in impeachment proceedings.
For his part, former congressman Lorenzo “Erin” Tañada III, the Liberal Party’s (LP) acting president, said any Filipino citizen can seek the removal of SC justices if they believe the magistrates abused their authority by declaring the impeachment case against Duterte unconstitutional.
He put forward this opinion during The Agenda forum in San Juan City, when a reporter asked him about the citizenry’s options in situations when members of the High Court themselves are seen as having made unconstitutional decisions.
“The answer to that question would be to file an impeachment complaint against the Supreme Court and then cite the grounds if they feel that there is a violation of Article XI that can be considered a culpable violation of the Constitution,” Tañada said.
However, the former lawmaker clarified that neither he nor the LP is advocating for this course of action, pointing out that this is only an option available to the public.
“Like I said, I’m not advocating it, but it does not stop any citizen — as it is mentioned in Article XI — from doing so. Now the key here is, will there be a member of the House who would endorse the impeachment complaint?” Tañada asked.
He explained that Article XI focuses on the Accountability of Public Officers and lays down the impeachment procedure
Last week, Mamamayang Liberal Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima also warned that SC justices could themselves face impeachment for blocking the House of Representatives’ case against Duterte.
“You know, that we can initiate, or any interested party can initiate the impeachment process against these justices themselves, I don’t want to do it, but that probability is there,” she said in a televised interview.
Meanwhile, retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio explained that the impeachment case filed against Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. is different from the one against Duterte.
“The Francisco [case], involving former chief justice Davide, followed the first mode. The first mode involves the plenary referring to the Committee on Justice and there was a hearing before it. The [impeachment of Vice President] Sara is the same as [President Joseph] Estrada and [Chief Justice Renato] Corona; this is direct filing, the mode is different,” he said in an interview with TrueFm.
He noted that in the said case, the “one-year bar” starts from the time the panel acts on a complaint referred before the committee.
Meanwhile, the present impeachment move was a direct transmittal to the Senate.
As this developed, the Makabayan bloc yesterday filed a Motion to Intervene and Motion for Reconsideration before the SC on the Vice President’s impeachment case.
In a statement, National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) Secretary General Josalee Deinla underscored that the framers of the Constitution intended impeachment to be a politically accessible tool of accountability.
The recent SC ruling narrowed this tool that the Constitution has kept open, he added.
The group, represented by the NUPL as counsel, prayed that the High Tribunal would dismiss the consolidated petitions and affirm the validity of the transmittal of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate so that the trial may proceed forthwith.
