What will the Supreme Court do? Cendaña challenges VP Duterte's petition on impeachment constitutionality
At A Glance
- Akbayan Party-list Rep. Perci Cendaña has filed before the Supreme Court (SC) on Friday, July 25 a motion to intervene--meaning, a motion asking the high court to dismiss Vice President Sara Duterte's petition, which challenges the constitutionality of the impeachment complaint lodged against her.
Akbayan Party-list Rep. Perci Cendaña (Facebook)
Akbayan Party-list Rep. Perci Cendaña has filed before the Supreme Court (SC) on Friday, July 25 a motion to intervene--meaning, a motion asking the high court to dismiss Vice President Sara Duterte's petition, which challenges the constitutionality of the impeachment complaint lodged against her.
Cendaña led the filing of the motion amid a rumored imminent decision from the SC regarding Vice President Duterte's challenge against her impeachment case.
The impeachment case--along with the seven articles of impeachment--was directly submitted by the House of Representatives to the Senate last Feb. 5, during the tail end of the 19th Congress. It was signed by at least 215 House members.
The Vice President’s camp has since sought the case's dismissal on the ground of constitutionality, even as the Senate sits on her actual impeachment trial.
“Minabuti nating mag-file ng motion for intervention dahil malapit nang magsimula ang session ng 20th Congress. Naniniwala tayong sa Senado ang tamang venue para litisin ang impeachment complaint ni VP Sara — hindi sa [SC]," Cendaña said.
(We’ve decided to file a motion for intervention as the 20th Congress session is about to begin. We believe the Senate is the proper venue to try VP Sara’s impeachment complaint — not the SC.)
"Kung dinidinig ng mataas na korte ang petition ng VP, dapat mas dinggin nila ang sambayanan (If the high court is hearing the VP’s petition, then all the more should they listen to the voice of the people),” he reckoned.
"Ang tanong lang naman ng taumbayan ay (The only thing the people want to know is): will the Supreme Court uphold the Constitution and its doctrines? Or will it save Sara and other government officials who abuse power? Nagbabantay ang taumbayan (The people are waiting),” Cendaña said.
The Akabayn solon claims that the Vice President’s petition "is legally unsound".
"Ang reklamo nila, na-violate raw ang one-year ban on initiating impeachment complaints. Apat ang impeachment complaints na na-file, pero isa lang doon ang initiated, at yun ang verified complaint na ipinasa ng more than one-third ng House members.”
(Their complaint is that the one-year ban on initiating impeachment complaints was allegedly violated. While four impeachment complaints were filed, only one was actually initiated and that was the verified complaint endorsed by more than one-third of House members.)
“The first three impeachment complaints filed were not referred to the Committee on Justice. Thus, they do not qualify as initiated complaints. Only the fourth complaint qualifies as such. Therefore, lahat ng ginawa sa House ay ayon rules of impeachment na nakabatay sa Saligang Batas (everything that the House did was in accordance with the rules of impeachment, which were based on the Constitution),” he added.
In the landmark case of Francisco v. House of Representatives, the SC established that an impeachment complaint is initiated either by: (1) the act of filing a complaint and its referral or endorsement of the complaint to the House Committee on Justice, or (2) the filing by at least 1/3 of the members of the House of Representatives of a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment.
Cendana emphasized the SC's role in ensuring accountability of public officials and that the public will view the high court’s decision as either upholding the Constitution or shielding the Vice President.