IMEE Marcos, Robin Padilla, and Cynthia Villar have refused to wear the required robes in the Senate’s two days of session as the Impeachment Court. There was no reason for their refusal to appear in robes, although their robes were already available and given them by the secretariat. There were whispers that they refused to wear them because they felt the Filipino people hardly tolerate and respect the sight of a senator in robe.
But the issue goes beyond the mere sight of a senator in robe. What is more disturbing is the sight of senators, who are grossly ignorant of the different facets of lawmaking. They hardly know that the Senate’s job as the other half of Congress involves not just lawmaking and oversight functions. It also functions as an impeachment court.
In times when an impeachment case is brought before the Senate by the other half of Congress, which is the House of Representatives, the 1987 Constitution mandates the Senate to constitute itself as an impeachment court. It also calls upon the Senate to hold trials to determine whether the impeached official is guilty or not.
The Philippine Constitution Association (PhilConsa), the most authoritative voice on constitutional law, speaking through Reynato Puno, a retired chief magistrate, said: “Once the Senate is clothed with jurisdiction as an Impeachment Court upon receipt of the Articles of Impeachment, that jurisdiction cannot be lost or suspended by mere procedural acts. It remains until final resolution or dismissal by the Court itself.”
Philconsa has opposed the remand order the 18 senators agreed on the day it went to a sine die adjournment on the Articles of Impeachment against Misfit Sara. Many senators considered the remand order as a compromise to attempts of Senators Francis Tolentino and Ronald dela Rosa to end the Articles of Impeachment simultaneous with the end of the term of office of the 19th Congress on June 30.
Retired magistrate Adolf Azcuna argued the remand order did not in any way suspend the jurisdiction of the Senate as an impeachment court on the Articles of Impeachment . Hence, the jurisdiction remains, Azcuna said. “It is the exercise of jurisdiction that is suspended until the next Congress to allow the case to cross over,” Azcuna said.
For its part, Philconsa raised the judicial doctrine of the Senate as a continuing institution when it comes to impeachment cases. It said: “ This principle of continuing jurisdiction applies with full force to the Impeachment Court – a doctrine reinforced by established practice, including the Clinton Impeachment trial before the U.S. Senate, whose model our own impeachment process follows.
Philconsa argued that the Senate’s remand order constitutes what is considered “grave abuse of discretion,” raising concerns whether “the Senate unlawfully suspended its jurisdiction validly acquired as an Impeachment Court. Moreover, it could be regarded as a novel move to delay the impeachment process, the Philconsa said.
This situation could have been avoided had the senators studied the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, understood the functions of Congress, including the Senate’s responsibilities as an impeachment court, and developed the strong commitment to follow and defend the Constitution. It did not happen though. What occurred was the irritating sight of a chamber composed of ignoramuses on their constitutional role as lawmakers.
The trio of lawyers in the Senate – Senate President Chiz Escudero, or “Tricky Tsis,” Alan Peter Cayetano, and Francis Tolentino – did not in any way elevate the quality of the Senate in the handling of the impeachment issue against Misfit Sara. They came out with wild and weird ideas about the impeachment process. They were largely unproductive.
It is an accepted judicial doctrine that impeachment is a political process. But despite the public acceptance, impeachment requires the cold neutrality of the senators, who sit as judges in the Senate as an impeachment court. It does not augur well to see the spectacle of senators, who keep on spewing words that appear to be a prejudgment of the impeachment case.
In several instances, these senators have sounded like defense lawyers of Misfit Sara. It only goes to show that neutrality has escaped their understanding of the impeachment process. To the end, they have sounded very partisan in support of the Misfit.
It is not a far-fetched idea to ask for the inhibition of these senators, who are largely allied with Misfit Sara. For having rendered a prejudgment of her impeachment case, these senators should inhibit themselves from participation in the impeachment trial and should prohibit themselves from giving any judgment.
This is not a tall order, but it would give a sense of fairness and neutrality to the trial proper. It is a must.
