In the aftermath of the temporary restraining order that the Supreme Court issued on the Senate impeachment court’s subpoena intended to inquire into the dollar accounts of Chief Justice Renato Corona, “impeachment” and “TRO” became the buzzwords of the season. But while they are mentioned together, they are as incompatible as heaven and hell for a TRO has no place in an impeachment proceeding.
The main objective in impeachment is not the protection of the rights of the respondent but the assertion of the right of the people to demand an accounting from an impeached public official. This is why the Constitution has provided safeguards to ensure that the process is shielded from unauthorized intervention.
Article XI Section 3 of the Constitution provides that only the people (whether by themselves or through their representatives in Congress) have the power to file an impeachment complaint. Thereafter, the articles of impeachment are sent to the people’s representatives in the Senate who are vested by the Constitution with the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment, to the exclusion of all other courts, even the Supreme Court.
It was an unauthorized act of interference on the part of the Supreme Court to have issued the controversial TRO. The tribunal managed to save face only with assistance from the Senate impeachment court, which erroneously voted to respect the TRO on the mistaken belief that it is coequal with the Supreme Court.
But when the legislative branch of government sets in motion the unique process of impeachment, it is no longer coequal with the executive and judicial branches. On the contrary, it is now empowered to charge and accuse, to put on trial, and to decide the fate of the highest ranking members of the executive or judicial branches, depending on which officials are being impeached. To extend courtesy, therefore, to these other branches on any matter related to the impeachment trial would be to make a mockery of the impeachment process.
The people, through their representatives to the constitutional convention, have vested on the Senate impeachment court the sole, absolute and exclusive power to try and decide impeachment cases. This plenary power includes the prerogative to make any action, process, subpoena, writ, or order necessary to carry out its objectives without interference from any other court, body, entity, or tribunal.
Consequently, the last paragraph of Article XI Section 3 of the Constitution provides that Congress may make its own rules on impeachment. It is not obliged to strictly follow the Rules of Court which is used in ordinary court proceedings.
In compliance with its constitutional mandate, the Senate drafted and adopted its own rules of procedure on impeachment trials, which sets in detail its power to, among others, compel the attendance of witnesses; to enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs and judgments; to preserve order; and to punish in a summary way contempt of, and disobedience to, its authority, orders, mandates, writs, or judgments.
If a person summoned by the Senate impeachment court has any objection to any process or order of the impeachment court, he cannot ask for a TRO from the Supreme Court or any other court, body, tribunal, or government agency.
Under the Senate rules, such a person may make an oral or written motion, like a “motion for reconsideration,” for instance, but he must present this only to the presiding officer of the Senate impeachment court.
It is significant that nowhere in the Constitution is there any provision for judicial review or intervention in any matter pertaining to impeachment.
Thus, when Philippine Savings Bank ran to the Supreme Court to ask for a TRO, it defied the Constitution as well as the Senate impeachment rules. But the irregularity did not stop there; it was compounded when the high court issued the TRO without authority, and multiplied thrice over when the Senate impeachment court decided to abide by the TRO out of misplaced courtesy to the high court.
As a final note, in view of recent developments in the impeachment trial where some senator-judges have obviously shown their biases and their dislike for certain parties in the trial, it might be timely to state that senator-judges are required to be neutral, fair, objective and unprejudiced. Personal opinions attacking certain parties have no place in what is supposed to be a dignified and impartial proceeding such as an impeachment case.
As a nation, we are just now learning the finer points and the intricacies of impeachment. As the trial unfolds on a day to day basis, we are in the process of making history. It would be a shame if future generations read their history books only to get the mistaken impression that an impeachment trial is an occasion for prejudice and unfairness.
Manuel Camacho is a lawyer.