Colmenares: Senate plenary not supreme over Constitution
Former congressman Neri Colmenares. — Inquirer file photo
MANILA, Philippines — Former lawmaker Neri Colmenares has reminded the Senate that the plenary will never be supreme over the 1987 Constitution, as the debate on whether the impeachment proceedings should start — and if it can be carried over to the 20th Congress — rages.
Colmenares, in a press briefing on Tuesday, said it is dismaying to hear senators raise technicalities regarding possible scenarios surrounding Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, when convening an impeachment court is not an optional matter.
According to Colmenares, the Senate is required under the 1987 Constitution to immediately convene itself into an impeachment court when a verified complaint is filed and signed by over one-third of House of Representatives members.
“It is dismaying for many, especially for the masses, that the impeachment trial is delayed when it is stated, as we have repeatedly said, that it is not the discretion of the Senate to delay or not the proceedings, or as to when they should start. What is stated in the Constitution is that trial ‘shall forthwith proceed,’” Colmenares said during the briefing at the Batasang Pambansa complex.
“That is not the discretion of the Senate, as if it is giving to the plenary to decide whether they will fulfill their constitutional mandate or not. The Senate plenary is not supreme over the Constitution , and it is not up to the Senate on whether or not they will convene as an impeachment court,” he added.
After the presentation of the articles of impeachment was postponed from its original June 2 schedule to June 11, concerns arose that the delay might lead to a scenario where the impeachment trial would not proceed.
Then on Monday, several senators debated whether the impeachment trial can cross over to the next Congress, with Senate Majority Leader Francis Tolentino manifesting before the Senate plenary that the chamber “cannot carry unfinished proceedings into the next Congress.”
But Senate Minority Leader Koko Pimentel and Senator Risa Hontiveros disagreed with the majority bloc’s position. Pimentel in particular noted that the Senate’s rules state that an impeachment trial should continue until final judgment is rendered, “even if it is necessary to continue into the next Congress.”
READ: Senators debate impeachment trial crossing into 20th Congress
Colmenares supports this position, saying that the impeachment is separate from the Senate’s legislative functions.
“It is frustrating especially when the senators said that the plenary of the new Senate, in the 20th Congress, will decide whether or not an impeachment trial (should proceed) or to convene an impeachment court, you can’t find that in the Constitution, even in their rules, it is stated that if an impeachment court convenes, it shall proceed forthwith and until judgment, whatever date that is,” he said.
“That’s what the constitution and their very rules say. The function of an impeachment court is separate from the legislative, in fact the very Senate rules state that when someone says there is an impeachment trial, the legislative should adjourn because these are separate bodies,” he added.
Under Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution, the Senate should initiate a trial “forthwith” if a verified impeachment complaint is “filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House.”
READ: New delay in Sara Duterte impeachment trial raises concerns
One-third of the House is 102 out of 306 — which means this requirement was satisfied after 215 lawmakers signed and filed the fourth impeachment complaint last February 5.
Duterte was impeached based on issues of 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 House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez.
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 on the CF expenditures.
During the course of the hearings, lawmakers discovered weird names signing off acknowledgement 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. /das
