Ex-CJ Puno: Public wants 'closure' to VP Sara Duterte's impeachment process

The impeachment court rules do not require the House of Representatives to provide a certification on the constitutionality of the Articles of Impeachment, according to former Chief Justice Reynato Puno.

In Tina Panganiban Perez’s “24 Oras” report on Wednesday, Puno told Super Radyo DzBB that he even finds the progress of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial slow.

“Lahat tayo ay nababagalan sa pagusad ng impeachment complaint diyan sa Senate impeachment court. 'Di naman hinihingi ng mamamayan na magkaroon ng acquittal or conviction, basta magkaroon lang ng closure at makita kung ano ang magiging decision ng Senate impeachment court,” said Puno, who also the chairman of the Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA).

(We all find the progress of the impeachment complaint in the Senate Impeachment Court slow. The public is not asking for an acquittal or conviction, as long as there is closure to whatever the Senate impeachment court’s decision.)

He said he found many faults with the actions of the Senate Impeachment Court, like the return of the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte to the House of Representatives.

“Halimbawa nagpromulgate na sila ng sariling rules and procedure eh wala naman du'n sa kanilang rules na dapat magkaroon ng certification 'yang House to the effect na nasunod ang one-year kuwan, wala naman yan sa rules and regulation nila eh bakit nila ngayon ini-impose 'yung reglamento na 'yon?” Puno said.

(There's nothing in the rules that says that the House of Representatives should have a certification that it did not violate the one-year ban indicated in Article XI, Section 2, paragraph 5 of the Constitution. That’s not included in their rules and regulations, so why are they imposing it?)

Puno believed that there should be no question as to whether the 20th Congress should take over the impeachment trial from the 19th Congress, because it is also being done in the Senate Electoral Tribunal, which probes into election complaints.

“Sa pagsusuri ng maraming dalubhasa sa ating saligang batas eh klarong-klaro naman doon na 'yang impeachment court is a continuing body. Nagpapalit ng judge eh hindi na rason 'yon to doubt the continuity and jurisidiction of the court. Ganu'n din 'yung Senate Electoral Tribunal papalit-palit ang representatne ng Senado diyan tuwing eleksyon pero continuing 'yung jurisdiction ng senate electoral tribunal. Ganu'n din ang sinusunod sa Estados Unidos. Nu'ng na-impeach si President Clinton nagkaroon din ng mga bagong senador doon dahil sa eleksyon nila pero hindi nawala ang jurisdiction ng Senado,” Puno said.

(The impeachment is clearly a continuing body. The changing of the judges is not a valid reason to doubt the continuity and jurisdiction of the court. The same goes to the Senate Electoral Tribunal that changes its representatives in the Senate every election but remains a continuing jurisdiction. The same goes as well with the impeachment of US President Bill Clinton where the jurisdiction of the Senate remains despite having a new set of senators due to the elections.)

The former chief justice also believed that senator judges should remain impartial and should inhibit those who cannot follow it.

“'Yun pong requirement na kailangan ng isang huwes ay maging impartial, maging fair yan po ay parte ng due process at 'yan ay nandun sa ating Konstitusyon. 'Pag viniolate 'yung provision na yan their decision might be questionable,” Puno said.

(The requirement that a Senate judge should be impartial and fair is part of due process, and it is indicated in the Constitution. If that provision is violated, their decision is questionable.)

With these developments, the question of whether senators should serve as impeachment court judges floated.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, one of the drafters of the Constitution, said there was a previous proposal that the Supreme Court should take over if the Senate is unable to fulfill its duty as an impeachment court, but it was not approved.

“What I remember is Felicitas Aquino-Arroyo's suggestion, which we did not adopt but which we should have adopted in retrospect. Her solution is if the Senate is—for some reason or another—unable or unwilling genuinely to try and decide the impeachment case, the Supreme Court should fill the void in the exercise of some residual power and be the one to try and decide an impeachment case. Because the Supreme Court is impartial and is a constitutional body. So it is well placed to fill the gap in case the senators somehow refuse or are unable to act,” Azcuna said.

Meanwhile, Puno said, “meron na nga tayong naging panukala diyan kung papalitan ang '87 Constiution natin na dapat ang maging court diyan ay hindi 'yung political branch of government natin. Dapat ang maghusga, tulad sa ibang countries, ay isang constitutional court.”

(We already had a proposal that if the 1987 Constitution is to be amended, the court should not be the political branch of our government. Instead, like in other countries, a constitutional court should be the one making decisions.) —Mariel Celine Serquiña/LDF, GMA Integrated News