Prosecution: Impeachment court decision on threshold rule can't be appealed

Make this your preferred source to get more updates from this publisher on Google.

The Senate impeachment court’s decision to base the two-thirds vote needed to convict Vice President Sara Duterte on the number of senator-judges who are physically present cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court, the House prosecution panel said.

Private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa, Jr. and House prosecutor Joel Chua said the Senate’s decision was in line with its Constitutional authority and there was no grave abuse of discretion.

They made the statement amid the two petitions filed with the SC questioning the new threshold.

“The decision of the impeachment court on the new threshold is not appealable to the Supreme Court because as what [former] Chief Justices [Artemio] Panganiban and [Reynato] Puno said, this matter is a political question that only the Senate may determine since the Constitution gave the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases to the Senate. That determination is not available to the Supreme Court,” Tolosa said in a press conference.

Former SC Chief Justices Panganiban, Puno, Hilario Davide, Jr., and former Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, were invited by the impeachment court as amici curiae to share their thoughts on whether the threshold can be changed.

“We heard Chief Justice Panganiban even say, ang impeachment nagsisimula sa Senado at natatapos dito sa Senado,” Tolosa added.

Article 11, Section 6 of the Constitution does not state a number and instead reads "No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”

The same constitutional provision also states that "The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment."

Tolosa said there is no clear grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Senate impeachment court, given that the senator-judges asked four amici curiae for their thoughts and subsequently questioned their positions, as well as listened to the oral arguments of both parties, before making a decision.

“Mahirap sabihin na itong decision na ito ay produkto lamang ng kapritso. Klaro na talagang pinag-isipang mabuti ang decision na ito and it stands on solid legal grounds,” he said.

“We believe the opinions of the amici curiae but course, at the end of the day, it will still be the Supreme Court who will determine if they should even look into that matter,” he added.

Chua agreed that the Senate decided based on sound opinions of the majority of the amici curiae that the threshold can be changed, a position that Christian Monsod, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, shares.

“These are disinterested parties. They are just sharing their thoughts based on their experience. That is why I believe that the Senate made the decision with outmost caution,” the lawmaker said.

“There is no grave abuse of discretion because the Senate heard the amici curiae before making the decision,” he added.—AOL, GMA News