BEFORE the articles of impeachment against Sara Duterte even reached the Senate, the University of the Philippines College of Law had already published its “Impeachment Primer and Frequently Asked Questions.”
The Primer is available online despite the Supreme Court’s recent promulgation of Duterte vs. House of Representatives.
Excerpts from the Primer
Question: Does the House of Representatives need to conduct hearings before initiating an impeachment case?
Answer: Generally, the House of Representatives is not obligated to conduct hearings until certain conditions are met. First, the Committee on Justice must first find the complaint sufficient in form and in substance. If the answer is in the affirmative, it shall give notice to the respondents and allow them to file their Answer, affidavits, and other pleadings. Upon the receipt of all the pleadings, the Committee shall decide if sufficient grounds for impeachment exist. If there are sufficient grounds, only then will the Committee conduct a hearing [Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings (hereinafter “House Rules”), rule III, 19th Cong., 1st Sess. (2022)].
However, if the House of Representatives initiates impeachment by direct resolution of at least one-third (1/3) of all its Members, then the House of Representatives will no longer conduct said committee hearings. The Articles of Impeachment in such resolution are transmittable to the Senate, which must try the case “forthwith.” [Const. art. XI, § 3(5)]
***
An examinee would have copped a 100% rating for that answer assuming that they took the bar examinations before Duterte vs. House was rendered.
Note the important distinction between complaints that are referred to the committee on justice of the House of Representatives, and impeachments that are initiated by direct resolution of 1/3 of its members.
Authors of the Primer say the House need not conduct hearings on an impeachment complaint that is filed directly with the Senate, citing the Constitution which provides: “In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”
***
Duterte vs. House has now written off that distinction. It says:
“The respondent should have had the opportunity to be heard on the draft Articles of Impeachment and the supporting evidence to prove the charges prior to the transmittal to the Senate and regardless of the number of members of the House of Representatives that have already endorsed.”
“Opportunity to be heard” translates to the conduct of hearings.
***
Does this fault the House for violation of a rule that was not yet in existence when it directly transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate because it had the numbers to do so?
The Free Legal Assistance Group comments that the decision “effectively changes the rules midstream. The impeachment complaints were filed under a previous, then-unchanged understanding of the word ‘initiate’ in relation to the one-year bar and should, thus, have not been subjected to an interpretation of the same provision that did not yet exist at the time they were filed.”
Do you agree?/PN
