MANILA, Philippines – Individual members of the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law faculty have signed a statement urging the Senate to proceed with the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte.

In the letter published on Thursday, June 5, over a hundred UP law professors expressed “grave concern” over the proposal to kill the impeachment complaint against Duterte.

According to the professors, the grounds cited — which are the alleged violation of Duterte’s right to speedy trial and the non-continuing character of the Senate — “are unsupported by factual developments and a proper reading of the Constitution.”

“A premature dismissal will undermine the core democratic principle of checks and balances. In contrast, proceeding with the impeachment trial will uphold the Senate’s constitutional mandate on public trust and accountability,” the letter read.

“We therefore earnestly urge our Honorable Senators: let the truth unfold. We call on the Senate of the Philippines to comply with its constitutional duty to “forthwith proceed” with the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte,” it added.

Multiple senators have confirmed the existence of a supposed draft Senate resolution that seeks to block the vice president’s impeachment trial.

Staunch Duterte ally Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa confirmed that he drafted the said Senate resolution. Senator Imee Marcos, another Duterte ally, said the draft was among the “many versions” that aim “to find the most effective and legally sound solution, one without loopholes.”

ML Representative-elect Leila de Lima, who will be part of the House of Representatives’ prosecution team, said the Senate must first convene as an impeachment court before it can “validly” entertain the options in dealing with the impeachment complaint.

Must Read

Senate must convene as court before it can junk Sara Duterte impeachment – De Lima

Duterte, daughter of former president Rodrigo Duterte, became the first vice president to be impeached by the House of Representatives after 215 lawmakers signed the complaint against her back in February. The complaint stemmed from allegations of confidential and intelligence funds misuse by agencies headed by Duterte, among others.

As the upper chamber, the Senate will serve as the impeachment court for the proceedings, while some members of the lower house will function as prosecutors like De Lima. However, Senate President Chiz Escudero had recently postponed the first step of the proceedings — the reading of the Articles of Impeachment — from June 2 to June 11.

Professors’ explanation

Dela Rosa’s draft Senate resolution claimed that the upper chamber’s inaction on the complaint allegedly violated Duterte’s right to speedy trial — a safeguard provided in the Bill of Rights.

The UP law professors reiterated that the Constitution ensures this right “before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies,” but Duterte’s right to a speedy trial was not violated by the stalling of the complaint.

They explained anew that an impeachment trial is a “sui generis (of its own kind)” procedure, and is not a case before a judicial, quasi-judicial, or an administrative body. They also noted that the impeachment trial is held in and led by the Senate that serves as a “constitutional office of accountability.”

“On the text of the Constitution alone, the right to speedy disposition would not apply,” the professors said.

“Even if it did apply, Vice President Duterte was not prejudiced by these delays. Neither has she sought a dismissal from the Senate or the commencement of her trial since the Articles of Impeachment were transmitted. In fact, she filed a petition before the Supreme Court and sought an injunction against the trial,” they added.

In the draft, the “non-continuing body” argument was raised again, citing the Neri v. Senate and Balag v. Senate cases. The Neri case says that the Senate of each Congress acts separately and independently of the Senate of the Congress before it.

The professors explained that these cases are not applicable in the context of Duterte’s impeachment because they were within the context of legislative probes. They also noted that even though Rule XLIV, Section 123 of the Senate says that all pending matters shall be terminated upon the end of a Congress, this usually applies to regular legislative and non-legislative business of the upper chamber.

However, the UP Law professors said impeachment is not an ordinary legislative and non-legislative business, but rather a “distinct and singularly important constitutional duty.”

“Even in Anglo-American practice, impeachment is ‘not discontinued by the dissolution of Parliament, but may be resumed by the new Parliament,’” they added.

In the letter, the professors also reiterated that impeachment in the country became a venue to discuss important national issues that concern good governance. They added that impeachment as an accountability mechanism is not only supported by a constitutional provision but also by “constitutional and political history.”

“We are deeply concerned with moves to preemptively dismiss the impeachment case not because we necessarily believe in the charges: We do so because we wish to see the evidence, hear the Vice President’s defense, and with our fellow Filipinos, judge for ourselves her fitness to continue in public service,” the professors said.

“In these difficult moments, the people look to their Senate to be the forum for the country’s most important truth-telling procedure because of its seniority, independence, and reputation for statesmanship. As teachers and scholars of the law, we believe that the Senate’s dismissal without hearing even a single witness will mean its abandonment of its proud tradition as an august chamber and permanently alter our system of checks and balances,” they added. – Rappler.com