SC petition challenging impeachment voting rule ‘premature’: prosecutors

MANILA — Some members of the prosecution panel in the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte believe the petition questioning the Impeachment Court’s ruling on the voting threshold is “premature,” saying the impeachment court has yet to vote on the matter, and there is “no injury” or “justiciable issue” yet.

Lead House Prosecutor Gerville Luistro said this point may be included in the House of Representatives’ comment to the petition filed by Senator-Judges Robin Padilla and Bong Go before the High Court. But she said the House prosecution has yet to discuss the matter.

“One of the requirements in filing a petition for certiorari based on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction is injury. I honestly believe na wala pang injury. And that is why I’ve been saying premature ang petition because the only time that this will become ripe… mayroong injury na ma-a-assert ay kapag nakaboto na. Meaning, there’s a verdict already as to whether the respondent Vice President is convicted or acquitted. That’s the only time we say that there is an injury na nasusustain either of the parties,” Luistro said.

“Premature rin ngayon kasi matagal pa ang botohan. Premature ngayon because ‘yung mga hindi present, maaaring maging present at the time of voting… magiging moot and academic ‘yung issue ng two-thirds of those present because they will be present… They should wait for the day when the voting happens after all the evidence is in,” House Prosecution Counsel Atty. Lorna Kapunan, for her part, said.

“Ultimately, that’s a question to be decided by the Supreme Court, if it’s already a justiciable question. But of course, one view says it’s not yet, because voting has not yet occurred. We don’t even know if it’s going to be an issue, because the determination of how many people can vote will be done only at the time that the judgment will already be rendered. So it’s possible that the status of the senator-judges will be different at that time compared to the time now,” House Prosecution Counsel and Spokesperson Atty. Benjamin Tolosa Jr. also said.

They noted that it may be very difficult to say the impeachment court committed grave abuse of discretion in its ruling, since it sought the guidance of amici curiae and the position of both sides in the impeachment case, before coming up with a decision.

“I would have to quote the explanation given by former Chief Justice Panganiban that it would be very difficult to say that there was a grave abuse of discretion… It’s obvious that that decision was not arbitrarily or capriciously done.
It was reached after painstakingly hearing the respective arguments of both sides, and then, even for the first time, inviting amici curae, not just one, but four former members of the High Court, three of them, even Chief Justices. And almost all of the senator-judges actively ask questions… So, with that, it would be very difficult to say that there was grave abuse of discretion because it’s obvious that it was not arbitrarily reached,” Tolosa said.

“The impeachment court was very careful in addressing the issue of threshold because, if you will remember, nag-oral arguments muna, binigyan ng opportunity si prosecution at si defense to articulate their respective position. After noon, nakinig tayo sa ating mga amici curiae, na mga dating Supreme Court Chief Justices, and after that, they deliberated amongst themselves, saka pa sila bumoto… Given the set of facts, paano kaya mag-a-assert ng grave abuse of discretion concerning the very careful then action of the Impeachment Court in addressing the issue of threshold,” Luistro added.

The Lead House Prosecutor reiterated that the matter concerns a political question that falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Senate Impeachment Court.

“Even before the trial, it has been the submission of the prosecution that this power exclusively belongs to the impeachment court. And this issue falls under the doctrine of political question. So, with all due respect to the Honorable Supreme Court, I am pronouncing that this is an exclusive power of the Senate as an impeachment court… Nevertheless, we are expressing our complete submission to file our comment to the said petition,” Luistro explained.

“We’ll respect the process before the Supreme Court, and we will see how the court will continue to act on it.
But as far as we’re concerned, we’re confident with the ruling handed down by the Senate Impeachment Court, because as we’ve previously explained, we believe it’s backed by… solid legal basis,” Tolosa added.

Asked whether they believe the filing of the petition is an indication of the petitioners’ leaning on the impeachment case, Luistro and Tolosa said they will give then the senator-judges the benefit of the doubt.

“We still want to give them the benefit of the doubt and think that they will be faithful to their obligation to observe political neutrality. Although, we must say that it’s not just usual that a member of the court itself will question the ruling of the court… But of course this is sui generis. it’s impeachment. So we’ll see how the court will appreciate it. And of course, they have the right to pursue remedies that they may deem to be appropriate,” Tolosa said.