IBA’T-IBA ang interpretasyon ng mga abogado, politiko, netizens sa napakasimpleng constitutional phrase na ALL MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.
Sabi nina Manila 3rd District Representative Atty. Joel Chua at private prosecutor Atty. Lorna Kapunan ang ALL members of the Senate dapat daw they actually participated during the impeachment trial. Kaya ang two thirds vote of ALL MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ay two- thirds ng senators who actually participate in the trial. Opinion nila yan. Pero may basehan ba?
Sa pag-interpret ng batas may legal principle na VERBA LEGIS o PLAIN MEANING RULE na ibig sabihin “Courts do not interpret a law if the law is already CLEAR, categorical and free from ambiguity.
Iyon bang ALL MEMBERS OF THE SENATE malabo? Baka para kina Cong. Chua at Atty. Kapunan malabo dahil hindi pabor ang Verba Legis sa kanila. Para sa kanila, dapat ay “ those who actually participate during the impeachment trial ang ‘all members of the Senate’.
Pero ‘di ba nga nag-oath na sina Senators Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa at Jinggoy Estrada as Senator judges ng impeachment court? Bakit mo sila tatanggalin sa bilang ng “ALL?”
Pero kung ang intensyon ng mga bumalangkas ng Saligang Batas ay katulad ng gusto nina Chua at Kapunan eh di sana two thirds of ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE WHO ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED DURING THE TRIAL ang nasa constitution. Pero hindi, ‘di ba?
Sabi ng ilang netizen, Atty., understood na dapat iyon dahil paano ka magde-decide kung hindi ka nagparticipate. Well, sorry. Mukhang kung ang intensyon ng mga gumawa ng Saligang Batas dapat inilagay nila iyon katulad ng sa JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT PROVISIONS SA CONSTITUTION.
ART. VIII SEC. 4
All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement or law which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation, of presidential decrees, proclamations, order, instructions, ordinance and other regulations, shall be DECIDED with a concurrence of a MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS WHO ACTUALLY TOOK PART IN THE DELIBERATIONS ON THE ISSUES IN THE CASE AND VOTED THEREON.
At ganoon din sa SEC 4(3) “Cases on matter heard by a division shall be DECIDED or resolved with the concurrence of A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS WHO ACTUALLY TOOK PART IN THE DELIBERATIONS….”
Pero iyan ” actually who took part in the DELIBERATIONS ay wala sa Art. XI sec 3 (6) na simpleng nakalagay na “NO PERSON SHALL BE CONVICTED WITHOUT THE CONCURRENCE OF TWO THIRDS OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.”
Sikapin na lang ninyo Cong. Joel Chua at Atty. Lorna Kapunan na makuha iyong 16 votes para maconvict si VP Sara ayon sa Saligang Batas at hindi ipilit na bawasan ang bilang ayon sa inyong kagustuhan.
