Q. Sir, you have presided over impeachment trials in the past. Do you agree with the way the Senate Impeachment Court is handling the case of Vice President Sara Duterte…
A. I do not know whether they’ve changed the rules but the Constitution is very clear. You must forthwith try and decide… Of course, when you say try, you must hear the evidence, and then decide to acquit or to convict. And the conviction [is not to punish]… the punishment is removal and disqualification to hold public office, but not jail.
I don’t know whether they have changed the rules. We never had the experience or precedent like what they have done now to return the impeachment complaint to the impeaching authority which is the House of Representatives. To me that is not done because the Senate is the co-equal body of the House. The House cannot perform its job without the performance of the Senate, and in the same way the Senate cannot do anything that is valid until the House also performs its function. There is a symbiosis between them.
Q. Would you say that that move to return the impeachment (complaint) is unconstitutional?
A. I think there is a misunderstanding along the way. I do not know why they have to tarry. You know, once an impeachment is filed with the Senate we have no other choice except to hear it, to try it, and decide it. And it will not lapse. Once it is within the jurisdiction of the Senate, it has to discharge its duty to judge the case. It’s sui generis.
Q. Why do you think there are these kinds of moves to return the impeachment case back to the House….
A. Well, frankly I think there is a semblance … that Sara does not want to face an impeachment trial. That is my opinion.
Q. But that’s from the perspective of VP Sara. How about the senator judges, they have a duty to perform, right?
A. The trouble with that is that the Congress of the Philippines will put the Constitution on a very peculiar situation. They are now locked into an impasse. Now, who can unravel that? Either you go to the Supreme Court if there’s a case, and get an interpretation. But to me there is no need because we have the precedents of Erap and Corona’s impeachments. And the resolution of Senator Bato, with due respect to him, is unparliamentary. You cannot dismiss, you cannot move to dismiss, a case. You cannot even do that in a bill coming from the house changing the name of a street or a cat or whatever. More so, in an impeachment case. An impeachment case is not an accountability to the senators. It’s not an accountability to any impeachable officer. It is not an accountability to the government. It is an accountability to the sovereign people of this country, from whom all powers of the government, including all powers of the senators, emanate.
Q. Should Senator Bato recuse himself or inhibit himself from the trial?
A. A senator who shows his bias and partiality I think can be censured, even, by this chamber, if they want to censure him. … This is the first time that a senator had the temerity to ask for the dismissal of an impeachment case. I’m not sure of the answer to that question.
Q. What goes through your mind when you see these senators introducing new rules that you mentioned are not in the Constitution?
A. Well it goes without saying that they are not familiar with the Constitution… and second, that they do not know the meaning of their role as jurors in an impeachment trial. They’re not there to legislate. … They are there as juries, as judges, to listen to the evidence and to form a conclusion in their mind regarding the weight and gravity of the evidence presented against the respondent. …
Q. The question now is how do we get the impeachment back on track? How do we fix this?
A. Well, let it continue. Did the House accept the remanding of the impeachment case?
Q. They have not….
A. That is the dilemma … but my opinion is that it continues. Now you see the only institution of the government that has members that remain during an election in this country is the Senate. Under the 1935 constitution that was also true but the number was reduced by the 1987 constitution and I do not know why. The purpose of the two-thirds number under the 1935 constitution … is that there must be an institution, just like in the United States, that remains all the time to make a decision in case something happens to the president and the vice president or the House, so that we will not collapse… as a country. Two thirds is more than a quorum of the Senate. That was its purpose. I do not know why they removed the two-thirds and made it one-half. Nothing can function without a quorum. And in case of war, or something happens like this, we are a country without a government. It’s a very dangerous situation. I think we have to change the Constitution and restore the old two-thirds of the Senate that was written in the 1935 Constitution.
You know, what is happening in the Senate, with this event, I’m afraid that the people might be prepared to revamp the structure of government and abolish the senate. Because it has become…. It has been disturbed very much by what has happened.
Q. Someone said that some senator judges are acting like lawyers for the VP. Do you share that opinion?
A. The rule of impartiality is a hallmark of the role of every senator in an impeachment trial. That is why impeachment of an impeachable officer, and there are only a very few of them, is separated from Article VI of the Constitution. It was treated in Article IX because that is the article that governs accountability of high government officials wielding high powers of government. Who are the impeachable officers? The President, the Vice President, members of the Supreme Court, members of Constitutional Commissions, including the Ombudsman. Those are the only impeachable positions. The president cannot do anything because he is also an impeachable officer. He has a conflict of interest if he will intervene, apart from the separation of powers. The president is locked out from the fray.
Q. How do we go beyond partisan politics and make it about accountability?
A. The only two ways that I can see would be for the Supreme Court to make an interpretation which will become a part of our jurisprudence and in turn become a part of the law of the land to define and clarify that portion of the Constitution. The second one is, amend the Constitution… there’s no other way.
Some people might think that this is a very light problem for the country. No sir. We are in a very dangerous situation right now because if there is an impasse the Senate cannot command the House to do anything. They are co-equal. Neither can the House command the Senate to do anything. The House did its function — they conducted hearings, they found something wrong, you may not agree with them but they found that, and they submitted it to the Senate for resolution. The Senate is supposed to do its job with reasonable speed or, as the Constitution says, forthwith, anybody can understand that English, and they did not do it, they tarried and dillydallied and worse they turned it back to the House… which is improper and unparliamentary…. You must give a presumption of regularity to the other house. You cannot demand or command the other house which is your co-equal.
Q. With all the moves that we are seeing from the senator judges, do you think it’s just because they have no numbers to convict the vice president?
A. I do not know whether there are no numbers to convict or acquit the vice president but in an impeachment trial… I give you myself as an example. I was going to vote for Corona but I changed my mind when I heard the evidence coming from his own mouth. How do you know that those people who will hear the evidence will not change their minds? Because if they’re going to act in a way where the public feels that they’re not performing their jobs they’re subject to punishment through election. If they’re not going to run again, maybe, but they’re politicians, they cater to the desires … of the voting population
Q. Kumbaga, the people will remember.
A. Im sure. I’m sure some people will get hurt with what happened.
Q. I want to go back to the impeachment trial of President Estrada . Do you see any similarities between the trial of President Estrada and the trial of Vice President Duterte given that they are both from the executive branch?
A. In the case of the first impeachment that happened, I don’t think that anyone can say that we delayed. As I told you the process that we followed was, when the impeachment was received by the secretary general of the senate, that official sent it to the committee on rules, the committee on rules immediately, the following session day he puts it in the order of business for first reading, and the plenary will send it to the proper committee for processing immediately, and we did that in the case of Erap, and the head of the committee that handled it was Renato Cayetano, and we prepared the rules of impeachment, how the senator judges will comport themselves, how time is allotted to each clarificatory question, and that there must be no debate. You cannot debate with the witness, you cannot debate with each other .
Q. If you have a chance to have a conversation with the sitting senator judges, what would you tell them?
A. With due respect to them my (first advice) is to be reticent, keep quiet. … Go to the session hall during the trial, sit down and listen to the proceeding, listen to the presentation of evidence. Let the defense lawyer and the prosecution handle each other but never interfere unless you want to ask a clarificatory question. Understand the meaning of the evidence that is being presented or the words uttered by the witness.
Q. How about the Filipino people. What would be their role in this impeachment trial?
A. Im sure the Filipino people who have a little understanding of these things will wonder why things are happening this way. Im sorry to say this but even I was a little bit taken (aback) with the events that transpired because (it was) very evident that there is a desire to prevent the trial to go through.
Kailangan maintindihan ng ating bayan na kung itong proseso ng impeachment na nangyayari ngayon ay masusunod, wala nang sasangga sa corruption sa buong bansa. Ibigay na lang natin yung pera … ng mga nagbabayad ng buwis … sa gobyerno, at bahala na sila. Hindi na pupunta sa mga tao. Libre na eh. Wala nang magbabawal sa kanila. Wala na silang barrier o yung sasangga sa nakawan ng kaban ng bayan. Nalulungkot ako dahil karamihan nitong mga nasa senado ngayon , marami sa kanila mga kaibigan ko. Pero yung mga bago, dapat mag-aral naman sila sana, at malaman nila kung ano talaga ang ibig sabihin nitong trabaho na pumasok sa kanila na dapat nilang sundin.