Senator-Judge Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson on Wednesday asked former Supreme Court justices how the Impeachment Court can ensure fairness to the Filipino people, as emphasized by former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban in his preliminary remarks and which, along with truth, should be an important basis for the impeachment court’s decision – if nine of its 24 members are unable to attend, leaving only 15 senator-judges, one short of the 16 votes that represent two-thirds of all Senate members required for conviction under the Constitution.
Lacson said the current situation of the Impeachment Court, with two senator-judges detained, one abroad, and one in hiding, is a novel one that framers of the 1987 Constitution may not have anticipated when they set the two-thirds requirement for conviction.
In Filipino: Lacson, Itinanong sa Amici Curiae Kung Paano Matiyak ang Katarungan Kung Hindi Makadadalo ang 9 Senator-Judges
In his interjection during the appearance of the former high court justices as amici curiae (friends of the court), Lacson cited a hypothetical situation where nine senator-judges could not attend the impeachment trial because they were stranded abroad.
“Saan po mapupunta ang fairness sa Filipino people, kung walang mapanagot sa accountability? Hindi ko sinasabing guilty ang respondent dito, ito po ay hypothetical. Saan tayo gagawi para ma-achieve ang fairness kung alam nating 15 ang present, available, ang capacitated na member kasi 9 incapacitated, hindi makarating dito? Ito opinion ko lang, di ako makikipagdebate, na yan ang magiging unfair tayo sa Filipino people (Where will fairness to the Filipino people go in such a situation? I am not saying the respondent is guilty; this is a hypothetical situation – how can we ensure fairness when we know only 15 are present, available and capacitated because nine are incapacitated and cannot attend? This is just my opinion, I am not debating with you – the situation may be unfair to the Filipino people),” he said.
“Palagay ko di nyo na-anticipate or na-foresee na meron palang isang magtatago, may dalawang makukulong na walang bail, at may isang nasa ibang bansa… Sasangayunan ko ang kay (former) Chief Justice (Reynato) Puno na hindi pwedeng immovable kasi nag-e-evolve ang sitwasyon, circumstances, pumapasok ang bago. At kung tayo ay napaka-rigid at plain language ang textual meaning ng ating Constitution ay naka-fix sa 16, ang 2/3 define na natin as 16 di inantala na may situation mangyayari dito babalik kay Chief Justice Panganiban ang fairness (I believe no one anticipated or foresaw our current situation where one senator-judge is in hiding, two are detained without bail, and one is abroad. I agree with former Chief Justice Reynato Puno that we cannot be so rigid as to fix the voting threshold to 16, which is 2/3 of 24 senator-judges),” he added.
Earlier, former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban said that senators can interpret the Constitution “in accordance with their mandate as representatives of the people, especially reflecting the common sense of the people, guided by two fundamental standards, namely truth and fairness.”
He said that while truth involves the facts extracted from studying and verifying documents and papers and from hearing and observing witnesses, fairness demands due process “where all sides are given the opportunity to explain their language and actions.”
In reply to Lacson’s questions, Panganiban said fairness can be rendered by 2/3 of those present, adding our people “deserve to be given justice because the 15 present can still act and render justice and be able to discipline whoever is to be disciplined.”
Panganiban added that the Constitution has empowered senators to act, and that it trusts their judgment.
For his part, retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna said that if 15 senator-judges remain but there are still 24 members, there “can be no conviction” based on the Constitution’s requirement of 2/3 of all the members.
Azcuna likened the situation to a Supreme Court decision in which the justices fail to obtain the necessary vote to declare a law unconstitutional, resulting in a denial of the petition for lack of the votes required under the Constitution.
“It’s a rare occasion, rare event which in that case is a price we pay for the internal check of a supermajority threshold. There are occasions where accountability through impeachment will fail. But there are other modes of accountability, criminal case for instance; forfeiture of cases; and ultimately the ballot box… So impeachment is not the only mode of accountability,” Azcuna said.
Aside from Panganiban and Azcuna, former Chief Justice Reynato Puno also attended Wednesday’s impeachment trial as an amicus curiae. Former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. submitted a memorandum that was read in the Impeachment Court.
Lacson also asked Panganiban if inviting the amici curiae would help shield the impeachment court from accusations of grave abuse of discretion – a basis for questioning the impeachment court’s actions before the Supreme Court – later on.
“Sasagutin ko partly ang aking tanong, meron kaming due diligence (I will partly answer my question – we practiced due diligence). We took time to listen to eminent people like you,” he said.
Panganiban agreed, saying this was “a wise, prudent move” by the impeachment court, adding that “your questions are piercing, intelligent, enlightening, and edifying.”
*****
Lacson, Itinanong sa Amici Curiae Kung Paano Matiyak ang Katarungan Kung Hindi Makadadalo ang 9 Senator-Judges
Tinanong ni Senator-Judge Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson nitong Miyerkules ang mga dating mahistrado ng Korte Suprema kung paano matitiyak ng Impeachment Court ang pagiging patas nito sa sambayanang Pilipino, gaya ng binigyang-diin ni dating Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban sa kanyang paunang pahayag, na kasama ng katotohanan ay dapat maging mahalagang batayan ng desisyon ng Impeachment Court — kung hindi makadadalo ang siyam sa 24 nitong miyembro, at 15 na lamang ang matitirang senator-judges, isang boto ang kulang sa 16 na kumakatawan sa two-thirds ng lahat ng miyembro ng Senado na kinakailangan para sa conviction sa ilalim ng Konstitusyon.
Ani Lacson, kakaiba ang kasalukuyang sitwasyon ng Impeachment Court, kung saan dalawang senator-judge ang nakakulong, isa ang nasa ibang bansa, at isa ang nagtatago—isang sitwasyong maaaring hindi na-anticipate ng mga framers ng 1987 Constitution nang itinakda nila ang two-thirds requirement para sa conviction.
Sa kanyang interjection sa pagharap ng mga dating mahistrado ng Korte Suprema bilang amici curiae (friends of the court), naglahad si Lacson ng isang hypothetical na sitwasyon kung saan siyam na senator-judge ang hindi makadadalo sa impeachment trial dahil na-stranded sila sa ibang bansa.
“Saan po mapupunta ang fairness sa Filipino people, kung walang mapanagot sa accountability? Hindi ko sinasabing guilty ang respondent dito, ito po ay hypothetical. Saan tayo gagawi para ma-achieve ang fairness kung alam nating 15 ang present, available, ang capacitated na member kasi 9 incapacitated, hindi makarating dito? Ito opinion ko lang, di ako makikipagdebate, na yan ang magiging unfair tayo sa Filipino people,” aniya.
“Palagay ko di nyo na-anticipate or na-foresee na meron palang isang magtatago, may dalawang makukulong na walang bail, at may isang nasa ibang bansa… Sasangayunan ko ang kay (former) Chief Justice (Reynato) Puno na hindi pwedeng immovable kasi nag-e-evolve ang sitwasyon, circumstances, pumapasok ang bago. At kung tayo ay napaka-rigid at plain language ang textual meaning ng ating Constitution ay naka-fix sa 16, ang 2/3 define na natin as 16 di inantala na may situation mangyayari dito babalik kay Chief Justice Panganiban ang fairness,” dagdag niya.
Nauna rito, sinabi ni dating Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban na maaaring i-interpret ng mga senador ang Saligang Batas sang-ayon sa kanilang mandato bilang kinatawan ng mamamayan at sumasalamin sa “common sense” ng mga mamamayan, gabay ang “truth and fairness.”
Aniya, ang “truth” ay nakabatay sa mga katotohanang nakalap sa pagsusuri at beripikasyon ng mga dokumento at papeles, gayundin sa pagdinig at pagmamasid sa mga testigo. Ang “fairness” naman ay nangangailangan ng due process “where all sides are given the opportunity to explain their language and actions.”
Bilang tugon sa tanong ni Lacson, sinabi ni Panganiban na maaaring makamit ang fairness sa pamamagitan ng two-thirds ng mga dumalo, at sinabi niyang “deserve” ng mga kababayan natin na mabigyan ng hustisya dahil ang 15 na makadalo ay pwede pang umaksyon at disiplinahin ang dapat disiplinahin.
Dagdag ni Panganiban, binigyan ng Konstitusyon ng kapangyarihan ang mga senador na kumilos at pinagkakatiwalaan nito ang kanilang paghatol.
Sinabi naman ni dating Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna na kung 15 senator-judge ang matitira ngunit 24 pa rin ang kabuuang bilang ng mga miyembro, “there can be no conviction” batay sa requirement ng Konstitusyon na two-thirds ng lahat ng miyembro.
Inihalintulad ni Azcuna ang sitwasyon sa isang desisyon ng Korte Suprema kung saan hindi nakukuha ng mga mahistrado ang kinakailangang boto upang ideklarang unconstitutional ang isang batas, na magreresulta sa pagbasura sa petisyon dahil sa kakulangan ng mga botong hinihingi ng Konstitusyon.
“It’s a rare occasion, rare event which in that case is a price we pay for the internal check of a supermajority threshold. There are occasions where accountability through impeachment will fail. But there are other modes of accountability, criminal case for instance; forfeiture of cases; and ultimately the ballot box… So impeachment is not the only mode of accountability,” ani Azcuna.
Bukod kina Panganiban at Azcuna, dumalo rin sa impeachment trial nitong Miyerkules si dating Chief Justice Reynato Puno bilang amicus curiae. Nagsumite naman ng memorandum si dating Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., na binasa sa Impeachment Court.
Tinanong din ni Lacson si Panganiban kung makatutulong ang pag-anyaya sa mga amici curiae upang maprotektahan ang Impeachment Court laban sa mga alegasyon ng grave abuse of discretion sa hinaharap—isang batayan para kuwestiyunin sa Korte Suprema ang mga aksyon ng Impeachment Court.
“Sasagutin ko partly ang aking tanong, meron kaming due diligence. We took time to listen to eminent people like you,” aniya.
Sumang-ayon si Panganiban, at sinabing isa itong “a wise, prudent move” ng Impeachment Court, at idinagdag na “your questions are piercing, intelligent, enlightening, and edifying.”
*****