Make this your preferred source to get more updates from this publisher on Google.
Spokespersons of the House impeachment team welcomed the participation of legal luminaries in the discussion on the conviction voting threshold in the Duterte impeachment trial.
Retired Supreme Court Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, retired SC Chief Justice Reynato Puno, retired SC Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, and retired SC Chief Justice Hilario Davide were already named by the Senate impeachment court.
House impeachment spokesperson Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said in a press conference that the amici curiae have “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,” Alonto Adiong added.
Alonto Adiong also said part of the discussion will be “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,” he explained.
When asked what the House prosecution panel’s stand on the voting threshold is, Alonto Adiong replied, “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.”
House impeachment adviser and spokesperson Robert Ace Barbers believes it is important to consult legal experts on the 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,” Barbers said in a press conference.
Barbers said there are differing opinions on what the voting threshold should be and the amici curiae “can give their opinion on the issues.”
“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,” Barbers cited.
“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,” he added.
Whatever the Senate impeachment court decides, Barbers said the issue can still be raised before the Supreme Court.
“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,” he explained.
“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,” Alonto Adiong stated.
The oral arguments on the voting threshold are scheduled for September 23. —LDF, GMA News
