Sen. Francis Tolentino. 鈥斘〧ile hoto by Ni帽o Jesus Orbeta | Philippine Daily Inquirer
MANILA, Philippines 鈥� Members of the House of Representatives have different opinions on Senate Majority Leader Francis Tolentino鈥檚 proposal to hold Vice President Sara Duterte鈥檚 impeachment trial in 19 days, with some saying that it may not be enough to discuss all the available evidence.
Holding the trial from June 11 to 30 might not give the case a 鈥渇air day in court鈥� due to the limited amount of time allotted,聽 Akbayan party-list Rep. Percival Cenda帽a said in an ambush interview on the sidelines of the quad committee hearing on Monday.
According to Cenda帽a, the senators鈥� alleged mental gymnastics would not result in a victory like Filipino Olympic gold medalist Carlos Yulo.
鈥淥ur call is clear: The impeachment case needs a fair day in court. And it will not have a fair day in court if we rush it. They should remember that it is the mandate of the Senate to try 鈥� not let people pass through. We know that if it is rushed, we will be short on time due to the great amount of evidence that will be presented,鈥� Cenda帽a said in Filipino.
鈥淪o, again, I hope they realize that it鈥檚 always the Constitution over personal ambition. That鈥檚 what is important. This is not like Carlos Yulo 鈥� zas if their attempt at gymnastics, mental gymnastics, tumbling, and splits, they can let their idol pass through,鈥� he added.
Limited time?
Over the weekend, Tolentino proposed a 19-day impeachment trial, with the Senate convening as an impeachment court on June 11 and then delivering judgment by June 30.
The schedule is based on the belief that the impeachment proceedings could not extend into the 20th Congress. The current set of lawmakers under the 19th Congress will end their term on June 30.
READ: Pimentel seeks Senate caucus to 鈥榗larify鈥� Escudero scenario
On the part of Assistant Majority Leader Zia Alonto Adiong. he said: 鈥淲ell, first of all, we respect, from the very start, we have said that we respect whatever the decision of the Senate is. Now, we respect 鈥� if that鈥檚 the call of the Senate 鈥� to hold the impeachment trial starting 11th up to the 30th, we respect that. It鈥檚 just that on our part, we have consistently鈥� delivered our commitment to the people and our mandate to the Constitution.鈥�
鈥淎nd so, we鈥檙e just waiting for the Senate to do the same. So, let鈥檚 see. I personally respect that. As they say, justice delayed is justice,鈥� he added. 鈥淥n the part of the prosecution, we鈥檙e ready, the House prosecution is ready to present their evidence and their witnesses. So let鈥檚 see.
Adiong noted that if the prosecution team considered that the time given would not be enough, there would be time to argue that. However, the lawmaker said what would be important now would be the Senate timeline.
鈥淎gain, personally, we have always been consistent with our position that we respect the decision of the Senate, and now that they have finally declared or determined the timeline, let鈥檚 see how the proceedings will go once the Senate convenes into impeachment court,鈥� he said.
鈥淚鈥檓 sure there will be a time for the House prosecution to argue also, should they decide that the days that were considered to be the timeline for the prosecution for the impeachment trial are not enough. I鈥檓 sure there will be counter-arguments that we can see once the Senate convenes,鈥� he added.
READ:
鈥楴o June 30 deadline鈥�
Gabriela party-list Rep. Arlene Brosas said that the Senate should understand that what the people wanted to see would be their questions answered, and she thinks a substantial amount of time will be needed.
鈥淣o one can dictate what the timeline is, right? We know that what the people want to see is for the impeachment trial to proceed. And from there, we can see that we will have substantial discussions regarding impeachment 鈥� because you cannot do these in just a day. That鈥檚 not enough,鈥� Brosas said.
鈥淲e are still standing on that, that we should not be tied to that June 30 deadline. If we have more substantial discussions, we will see more evidence, we will know more, and the people鈥檚 questions will be answered,鈥� she added.
According to Brosas, not having a trial should be out of the options. However, the lawmaker is also open to hearing and seeing what the developments in the Senate will be.
鈥淎ctually, we need to have a trial. We have been saying that鈥� We have submitted [to the Senate] our impeachment papers, documents so that they can prepare for it. So we really need to have a trial, that is non-negotiable,鈥� she said.
There have been concerns that a Senate trial on Duterte鈥檚 impeachment might not push through after draft Senate resolutions seeking to dismiss the聽complaints, due to an alleged insufficiency of time to discuss the matter.
READ: Lacson: Draft reso to junk impeach bid vs Sara Duterte circulating
However, several lawyers are pointing to Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution, which lays down rules on an impeachment.
Under Section 3(1), the House has the power to initiate all impeachment complaints against impeachable officers 鈥� the president, vice president, members of the Supreme Court, constitutional commissions, and the ombudsman.
Meanwhile, Section 3(6) gives the Senate the 鈥渟ole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment鈥�, which several legal luminaries believe is an indication that the trial must start before the Senate even decides to dismiss an impeachment case.
The same section states that a Senate trial 鈥渟hall forthwith proceed鈥� if the verified impeachment complaint, contained in a resolution, is filed and signed by one-third of all House members.聽聽With 306 members in the House, any impeachment resolution would need 102 signatures, which means this requirement was attained after 215 lawmakers signed the impeachment last February 5.
READ: Dismissing Sara Duterte鈥檚 impeachment thru Senate reso illegal 鈥� solons
Duterte was impeached based on the alleged misuse of confidential funds (CF) lodged in her offices, and her 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 different groups 鈥� which included findings of the House committee on good government and public accountability, which showed issues on the expenditures using confidential funds. /atm