Atty. Antonio Audie Bucoy, the House Prosecution panel’s Spokesperson, has weighed in on the Senate impeachment court’s decision to remand the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte.
In a press conference on Tuesday, June 17, he explained that remanding of cases only applies to ordinary case courts, but never in the impeachment court.
Echoing former Chief Justice and now-Chairman of the Philippine Constitution Association (PhilConsa) Reynato Puno’s statement, Bucoy affirmed that Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero’s ruling does not abide by what the Constitution says.
“Ang pag remand, ang ibig-sabihin yung lower court should reconsider. Gaya po ng nabanggit ko kanina, wala pong salitang remand sa impeachment. Hindi ho angkop ang remand sa impeachment. Yung remand ay para sa ordinaryong kaso sa ordinaryong hukuman, but never sa impeachment court,” Bucoy emphasized.
According to the spokesperson, Escudero is dismissive of PhilConsa because judgments were based on the “merit of what was said” and not the personality.
“My take is that the argument is based on the merit of the argument, not on the personality. Hindi po personality-based ‘yan, [kundi] merit based,” Bucoy stated.
Last week, PhilConsa issued an urgent statement on the Senate’s action remanding the 4th impeachment complaint against the Vice President to the House of Representatives. This came after Escudero stated that there are no limitations on what the Impeachment Court can or cannot do.
Constitutional questions and challenges
“This action raises grave constitutional questions and challenges the integrity of the impeachment process. PhilConsa warns that it may constitute grave abuse of discretion and risks undermining the most fundamental principle of our constitutional democracy: that Public Office is a Public Trust,” its statement read. “The Accountability of Public Officials cannot be overstressed - and must never be evaded through procedural artifice.”
Moreover, it pointed out that once the Senate is “clothed with jurisdiction” as an Impeachment Court, the jurisdiction cannot be lost nor suspended by “mere procedural acts” and will remain until the final resolution or dismissal by the Court.
PhilConsa argued that the remand order raises a few constitutional concerns, such as: the grave abuse of discretion, encroachment on the House's exclusive power, circumlocutory delay, due process and impartiality, and the fundamental question of law.
“At stake is not merely the fate of one official, but the integrity of the Constitution itself. Impeachment is the people's mechanism to enforce Accountability of Public Officials. It must not be thwarted by procedural invention or partisan maneuver,” PhilConsa said.
The limitations
Meanwhile, Bucoy highlighted that although the Senate acts as the Impeachment Court, there are still limitations indicated in the Constitution and their own impeachment rules.
“Meron pong limitasyon. Ang limitasyon ay ang ating Saligang Batas at ang kanilang sariling impeachment rules,” he said.
“Hindi po pwedeng porke you are sui generis, pwede mong gawin ang lahat ng gusto mo. ang limitasyon po ay nasasaad sa kanilang Saligang Batas at sa kanilang sariling impeachment rules,” he added.
Bucoy explained that the impeachment rules should still align with the parameters set by the Constitution.
“Kung inyong tutunghayan, nakahiwalay po yung Article 11 sa Article 6. Yung Article 6 ho, tungkol sa trabaho ng paggawa ng batas. Yung Article 11 is for accountability. Very specific yung provision ng accountability. Very specific yung provision nung what the powers are. So hindi po pwedeng bardagulan ‘to. Hindi pwede na kung anong gusto, ‘yun ang gagawin. May limitasyon,” he said.
