MANILA, Philippines – Suportado ng House impeachment team ang partisipasyon ng legal luminaries sa diskusyon sa conviction voting threshold sa impeachment trial ni Vice President Sara Duterte.
Pinangalanan na kasi sina retired Supreme Court Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, retired SC Chief Justice Reynato Puno, retired SC Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, at retired SC Chief Justice Hilario Davide ng Senate impeachment court.
Ayon kay House impeachment spokesperson Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong, ang amici curiae ay may “credibility, expertise, and integrity. So these are perfect experts who have been chosen by the Senate to be part of this process by soliciting their opinions regarding the threshold.”
“They have served as former justices of the Supreme Court or chief justices of the Supreme Court. Dalawa po diyan also sat in the Constitutional Convention of 1986 that drafted the 1987 Philippine Constitution,” dagdag pa ni Adiong.
Aniya, bahagi ng diskusyon ay “what happened or what transpired during the discussion in the 1986 Constitutional Convention deliberation.”
“Baka din po masabi po nila kung ano talaga yung intention, paano nila napag-usapan ito during the deliberation of the framing of the Constitution,” paliwanag pa niya.
Nang tanungin naman kung ano ang pagtingin ng House prosecution panel sa voting threshold, tugon ni Adiong:
“If you are asking us kung ano yung interpretation natin whether dapat ibaba o dapat remain, yes, there’s no official kasi there’s no official stand. But ang stand po ng prosecution panel is very clear – we do not engage in vote counting.”
Samantala, naniniwala naman si House impeachment adviser at spokesperson Robert Ace Barbers na mahalagang kumonsulta sa legal experts patungkol sa voting threshold.
“Ako, personally, I subscribe to that kasi mahalaga na magkaroon ng opinion na maaring gawing basehan ng ating impeachment court sa kanilang magiging decision in the future,” ani Barbers.
“Isa diyan sa lumalabas na opinion, it is not fair for a senator-judge to render a decision when he has not seen the evidence, not heard the testimonies of the witnesses, or has not seen the demeanor of the witnesses being presented by both panels.”
“Very important aspect of this trial is when the judges, the senator-judges, will render their decision in this unique situation that we have na kung saan ay marami sa mga senator-judges ay hindi nakapag-participate. Maraming schools of thought na lumalabas,” dagdag pa niya.
Anuman umano ang mapagdesisyunan ng korte, sinabi ni Barbers na ang isyu ay maaari pa ring iakyat sa Korte Suprema.
“The issue can, will just be raised before the Supreme Court if there is already a controversy. I think the objective of this amicus curiae is to get some opinions before the court, as a whole, will decide on whether they will lower down the threshold that would go against the constitutional provision of the concurrence of two-thirds of all members,” paliwanag niya.
“Ako, personally, ang tingin ko diyan is that though the Senate has the exclusive mandate to try and decide impeachment complaints, when it comes to constitutional provision, it’s the Supreme Court that has that mandate to interpret that,” ayon naman kay Adiong.
Ang oral arguments para sa voting threshold ay itinakda sa Setyembre 23. RNT/JGC
