It is a process that could take months before the final verdict.
On Monday, July 6, the Senate Impeachment Court had been finally called into session for the first day of the trial proper for the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte.
At 2:00 pm, the 21 senator-judges emerged into the reconfigured plenary hall of the Senate, with the absentees being Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa, who remains in hiding following an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court, and Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta, who have both been jailed amid charges filed against them before the Sandiganbayan.
Another personality absent in the start of the trial proper is the VP herself, who is said to have monitored the process remotely, and was represented by her defense counsel.
CAYETANO’S POINTS
At the onset, the opening day of the Trial was already saw major points raised, starting with Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano, his sister Pia Cayetano, as well as other members of the minority bloc.
Cayetano raised objections to the designation of a senator other than Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian as presiding officer in said Trial.
Shortly after Gatchalian’s opening statement, the former SP Cayetano raised a point of order challenging the Senate’s June 3 adoption of Senate Resolution No. 430, which amended the impeachment rules to allow another senator to be elected as presiding officer by a majority vote of members present.
He argued that the Constitution instead requires the Senate President to preside over all impeachment trials except when the President of the Philippines is on trial.
“It is very clear in the Constitution of the Philippines that the Presiding Officer is the Senate President. Section 3, Paragraph 6 of Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution, the Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment,” he tolf.
He also noted that Constitutional Commissioner Hilario Davide Jr. expressly proposed that the Senate President would preside over all other impeachment trials, but later withdrew the amendment after the Constitutional Commission agreed that the Constitution already made that clear.
“It is but elementary, Mr. President, in statutory, especially construction of the Constitution, that the spirit as well as the letter is followed,” he saidz further arguing that designating another senator to preside over the impeachment court would undermine the Senate’s institutional integrity and cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings.
“We need to protect the legitimacy of these proceedings. Even if the substitute Presiding Officer acts fairly, a conviction or acquittal reached under a constitutionally defective process would invite judicial challenge and cast doubt on the validity of the entire trial,” he said.
Cayetano also pointed out that the adoption of Senate Resolution No. 48 has been raised in his pending case before the Supreme Court.
He claimed that even assuming the constitutional issue were set aside, efforts to amend the impeachment rules failed to comply with the Senate’s own procedure such as Rule LI, Section 136 of the Rules of the Senate, he said any amendment must be presented at least one day before it is considered.
He added that the impeachment court adopted its rules on May 18, meaning any amendment should first be taken up and approved by the impeachment court in accordance with its own rules. “We did not debate that amendment to the rule. We cannot now just change the rules. We’re here for the trial. Are we here to change the rules?”
Cayetano also described both the issue of the presiding officer and the interpretation of the required two-thirds vote as “threshold issues” that must first be resolved before the impeachment trial proceeds.
“I want to avoid that this impeachment trial will be declared null and void. I want to avoid walkouts. I want to avoid any delays. The Senate President is more than capable [of presiding the trial],” he said.
PANGILINAN’S RESPONSE
In response to him, Senator Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan said, “Mr. President, with all due respect, the Constitution does not provide that the Senate President must preside in cases of impeachment trial.“
“What the Constitution provides is that when the President is undergoing impeachment, going through the trial, is being tried, the Chief Justice must preside,” he added.
Pangilinan also noted that there is no provisions in the Constitution on public accountability and impeachment that state that the Senate President must preside when the Vice President is under trial or any other impeachable officer.
“And precisely because of this, and precisely because the Constitution likewise allows Congress, not the impeachment court, Congress to promulgate its own rules, which is what the Senate did on June 3,” the senator-judge added.
“We promulgated, we proposed amendments to the rules under our rulemaking power, which, by the way, was subsequently ratified when we convened in a special session on June 17.“
According to him, the June 3 Journal was ratified unanimously during the June 17 special session, where Cayetano was not present.
“And in the June 3 minutes and the Journal, precisely, we approved the amendments to the rules. This was further ratified on June 17. Therefore, it is considered regular. The presumption of regularity now comes into fore,” continued the Senator.
“But having said that, Mr. President, the good gentleman from Taguig has brought this matter before the Supreme Court. And we agree with the point earlier raised by the Senate President.”
Thus, he pointed out that the matter should be discussed in the Senate during its plenary session as a legislative body, or turn to the Supreme Court.
“And therefore, this impeachment court is not the venue for this debate, Mr. President. If there is anyone who is out of order, with due respect, I think the proper process is the matter is pending before the Supreme Court,” Pangilinan also said.
He also emphasized that there is no temporary restraining order, but acknowledged a request for a status quo ante order that was not granted.
“And therefore, the presumption of regularity behooves us as an impeachment court to proceed,” Senator-judge Pangilinan underscored.
Cayetano’s sister, Senator-judge Pia Cayetano would also raise her points later on, but was also met with counter-arguments from former Senate Presiden Vicente “Tito” Sotto III.
ESCUDERO ELECTED PRESIDING JUDGE
Despite the challenge, another ex-Senate President in Francis “Chiz” Escudero would be elected the Presiding Judge of the Impeachment Trial following a motion by Senator-Judge Panfilo “Ping” Lacson.
In his statement, Escudero said that he will uphold impartiality and constitutional fidelity.
“As Presiding Officer, I shall do my part to uphold the fairness and integrity of this process and shall see it through to its proper conclusion,” with Escudero noting Duterte as the first vice president in Philippine history to face such proceedings and the only official to be impeached twice by the House of Representatives.
He continued, “I did not seek nor did I ask for this responsibility. But neither will I shirk from fulfilling this duty without fear or favor.”
He also thanked his colleagues for their trust and confidence in choosing him to preside over the trial, as he stressed that terminating an elected mandate before its term ends is “among the most drastic acts our constitutional democracy can undertake.”
“This is why the trial must be guided with prudence, tempered by caution, and marked with unquestionable impartiality,” furthered Escudero. “We must avoid even the appearance of impropriety and observe the cold neutrality of an impartial judge at all times.”
He then urged the Senator-judges, the prosecutors, the respondent, and their respective counsels and witnesses to refrain from making any comments and disclosures to the public pertaining to the merits of the trial.
Escudero also said that the Vice President will be afforded the presumption of innocence, and it is up to the Prosecution to prove otherwise. “The burden of proof rests upon the Prosecution. It does not and will not shift.”
He further explained that while the Rules of Court will be liberally construed to allow both sides to fully present their case, this must not be abused.
“The liberal construction of the Rules is not a license to ambush the opposing party, bypass due process, or introduce unverified evidence that would prejudice the fair and orderly conduct of this trial,” he said.
MATTERS TACKLED
On Day 1, the members of the House Prosecution Panel, led by Reps. Gerville Luistro, Chel Diokno, Leila De Lima, et al., together with their private prosecutors, who are now referred to as the Counsel to the Prosecution, entered their appearances Meanwhile, the Defense is led by Atty. Sheila Sison.
Both sides were given 15 minutes for their opening statements, while administrative matters and the possibility of having Estrada and Marcoleta physically present, at least as observers, were also tackled in relation to the trial.
The second day of the trial will take place on Tuesday, July 7, at 2:00 pm.
