Diary: Freedom or Justice?
In the throes of the Senate impeachment court, the impeachment charges against Vice President Sara Duterte have been sent back to the House of Representatives. This step hints at uncharted waters within our institution's justice system. During the initial hearings before the judges, Senator Ronald 'Bato' dela Rosa's privilege speech dismissing the impeachment complaint was not held in check.
There has been an insistence on the House of Representatives to clarify whether the "one-year ban" as stated in the Constitution has been surpassed. However, if this is confirmed, it doesn't significantly hinder the process, but rather paves the way for further scrutiny within the court itself. The senators called to support the motion, including family members of the Duterte family such as Dela Rosa, Bong Go, and Robin Padilla, dominated the sessions, with 15 other senators backing them.
Robin Padilla expressed concerns that the impeachment process could hinder other bills that need to be passed. Yet, the impeachment is an integral part of democracy. This doesn't pose a threat, unless it serves as a pretext for government officials to postpone their responsibilities and use their office for personal gain. The convenience excuse of wasting time and public resources is a familiar ploy for those trying to evade accountability.
Returning the case to Congress suggests a delay in the process. However, the impeachment shouldn't be viewed as a technical exercise. It demands a clear intention from both parties, to ensure a fair and just conclusion.
As an institution tasked with upholding checks and balances, the Senate should not form alliances in politics. If the political alliance persists, the impeachment would lose its purpose, becoming a tool for abuse.
Ultimately, the question remains: Is the Senate serving the people or its political allies?
Senate's Role in the Impeachment Process
The Senate holds a pivotal role in the impeachment process, serving as the impeachment court for high-ranking officials. In this scenario, the Senate is responsible for:
- Convening as an Impeachment Court: The Senate acts as a judicial body, with the Senate President presiding over the trial. Senators take an oath to remain apolitical during the proceedings[5].
- Hearing and Voting: The Senate reads the Articles of Impeachment, listens to the prosecution and defense, and casts votes on each charge. A two-thirds majority vote is required for conviction[5].
- Jurisdiction and Proceeding: The Senate holds jurisdiction over Sara Duterte's case, but recently returned the articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives to address constitutional issues[3].
Perception in the Philippines
The Senate's actions have been met with unprecedented controversy. Returning the articles to the House of Representatives has been likened to treading "uncharted territory" by former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna[3]. This move has sparked debate about the impeachment process's integrity and its potential impact on the rule of law in the Philippines[4].
Key Points of Perception:
- Unprecedented Move: The remand of articles is a first in Philippine impeachment history, leaving questions about the procedure's legitimacy[3].
- Constitutional Challenges: The Supreme Court is reviewing petitions contesting the proceedings, further complicating the situation[3].
- Public and Legal Opinion: The move is seen as a novel but potentially acceptable measure to ensure the process adheres to constitutional requirements, despite its unconventional nature[3].
Migration of the impeachment process back to the House of Representatives has sparked debates about policy-and-legislation and politics, as it is perceived as a novel move in the Philippines' history. War-and-conflicts could arise if the impeachment becomes a tool for government officials to postpone their responsibilities and use their office for personal gain, potentially affecting general-news and the rule of law in the Philippines.
