De Lima: Escudero violating Constitution with impeachment trial delay
Rep. Leila de Lima. Photo from House of Representatives.
MANILA, Philippines — Former senator Leila de Lima believes Senate President Francis Escudero’s rescheduling the presentation of the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte violates the 1987 Constitution’s mandate for an immediate start of the trial.
In an interview on Monday after her meeting with House minority lawmakers, De Lima was asked if Escudero’s decision to move the presentation of the articles before the Senate plenary from June 2 to June 11 goes against what is stated in Article XI of the Constitution, which tackles impeachment proceedings.
De Lima said yes it does.
Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution states that if a verified impeachment complaint is “filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House (or 102 out of 306 current members), the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”
A total of 215 House members signed the impeachment complaint.
“Yes, yes, that’s always been my position, that is clearly violative of what the Constitution says — forthwith is forthwith. And it’s been delayed a few times already. How many times it was postponed?” De Lima told reporters.
“The House of Representatives and the Senate cannot point fingers because I think the Senate President said something about, that in the first place, the House is late also in transmitting — correct me if I’m wrong — so now they are blaming each other,” she added.
According to De Lima, what should be certain is that the trial is not optional — hence, the Senate must convene as an impeachment court.
“But what is clear that under the Constitution, for me, the impeachment trial at this stage, which will be convening of the impeachment court and also proceeding with the impeachment trial, is not optional,” she noted.
Senate plenary
Last May 23, Escudero sent a letter to House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez inviting the House prosecution panel to the Senate plenary on June 2 — when Congress resumes its session — to present the articles of impeachment. Escudero then said that on June 3, the next day, the Senate will convene as an impeachment court.
READ: Presentation of impeachment articles vs Sara Duterte moved to June 11
However, last Thursday, Escudero sent another letter to Romualdez informing him that the reading of the articles will be rescheduled. This move raised concerns among sectors that seek accountability from the Vice President, as the delays seem to be a prelude to attempts to kill the impeachment.
READ: New delay in Sara Duterte impeachment trial raises concerns
In a press briefing earlier, Escudero said the fate of the impeachment will be up to the 20th Congress. Such a move, some legal experts say, may also face questions as there would be concerns if the members of the Senate in the 20th Congress can act on complaints forwarded by the House of the 19th Congress.
De Lima, however, said that she subscribes to the idea that, like regional trial courts, an impeachment court’s composition can change due to the resignation or promotion of judges, but retains jurisdiction of the cases, similar to the belief of prosecution panel member and Iloilo 3rd District Rep. Lorenz Defensor.
“If we will compare it with regular courts of law, it is common that judges who initially receive the evidence do not even finish the process, because they already retire and some inhibit, and others do not continue because other cases are raffled. That happened with my cases, because the original judges also inhibited, right?” she said.
“‘One judge actually was completely not involved in the receiving of evidence but he was able to decide the case based on the records of the case. That’s how it is in the Senate also, and with the Senate, half of the sitting senators are there, and the new ones are just a few. So the new Senate members can always review and study the records,” she added.
Verified fourth complaint
Last February 5, Vice President Duterte was impeached after 215 House lawmakers filed and verified a fourth complaint, hinged on alleged misuse of confidential funds (CF) lodged in her offices and threats to high-ranking officials, including President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and Romualdez. CF was embroiled in a controversy because of a lack of transparency, and its use cannot be audited
The fourth complaint was a combination of the first three impeachment raps filed by groups, which included findings of the House committee on good government and public accountability, which showed issues with the CF expenditures.
During the hearings, lawmakers discovered weird names signing off acknowledgment receipts (ARs) for the confidential expenses made by Duterte’s offices.
ARs are submitted to the Commission on Audit to prove that funding for projects reached its intended beneficiaries, which, in this case, are confidential informants.
Antipolo City 2nd District Rep. Romeo Acop noticed that one of the individuals who signed the ARs was named Mary Grace Piattos — a name similar to a restaurant and a potato chip brand.
Later on, Lanao del Sur 1st District Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong showed two ARs — one for OVP and another for DepEd — which were both received by a certain Kokoy Villamin. However, the signatures and handwriting used by Villamin in the two documents differed.
Both names were also not found inside the Philippine Statistics Authority database./mr/abc
