House wants Senate to clarify the “unclear” order to remand VP improvisation case
Propaganda members hope the Senate will clarify its decision to return the Impotence Complaint (VP) Sara Duterte-Carpio to the House of Representatives.
Prosecutors will draft a motion asking senators to rule their orders against Ms. Duterte’s impeachment complaint, who faces a trial that could end her political career.
“The prosecution panel last night believed the impeachment court order was somewhat unclear,” House Attorney Batangas Rep. Gerville R. Luistro said Wednesday in a news briefing in a mixed English and Philippines. “We therefore decided to seek clarification from the Impotence Court.”
She added: “About … we abide by the constitution’s certification in filing an impeachment complaint, we hold our stand–we fully and strictly abide by the constitutional requirements.”
More than 200 members of Congress signed an impeachment complaint against the vice president, accused of abuse of secret funds, unexplained wealth, unstable behavior, and orchestrated the assassination of Ferdinand R. Marcos, his wife and speaker.
Ms. Duterte denied any misconduct.
Ms. Louis Rowe said Ms. Duterte’s impeachment in the House should not be questioned by the senators because it “enjoys the presumption of legitimacy.”
She cited the rulings of then-Chairman Justice and Senator Juan Ponce Enrile in 2011 the late Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.
“He pointed out in the resolution that when two basic requirements are met – i.e., signatures and verifications of at least one-third of all House members – the submission of impeachment complaints has already made a presumption of legitimacy and will no longer be challenged unless there is strong evidence of dispute,” she added.
The Philippine senator voted Tuesday night to return the complaint to the House of Representatives to clarify its constitutionality.
After a heated debate among members, including efforts by Duterte allies to dismiss the case, the senator agreed not to terminate the trial, but first sent it back to the House to prove that its handling of the procedure was legal.
The impeachment of the daughter of former Firebrand President Rodrigo R. Duterte comes after a fierce fall with Mr. Marcos last year, with whom she ran a joint ticket that won the 2022 election on a landslide.
The Senate’s late-night move could provide Ms. Duterte with lifeguards and trial in her referees and influence the policy agenda and succession plans of her former allies.
Mr. Marcos served only in his tenure and created a powerful enemy in Ms. Duterte. He is expected to try to preserve influence and protect his legacy by embellishing a successor who can beat his rival in the next election.
Senate President Francis G. Escudero said Wednesday that the House has the responsibility to answer Senate questions.
“It is inappropriate for the House to not comply with the orders of the Impotence Court,” he told reporters. He pointed out that the issues at the trial were different from those in the Senate and House bills that could be eliminated in the committee of the bisattvas.
He added: “This is an order from the Impotence Court, focusing on prosecutors who are only parties to the case. The parties and the court are not equal.”
He said the Impotence Court had provided Ms. Duterte with a 10-day response, and the House would have five days to submit a reply.
Supreme Court case
Also on Wednesday, Ms. Duterte’s supporters asked the Supreme Court (SC) to stop the Senate impeachment lawsuit, which they said was not authorized to hear cases beyond June 30.
The 45-page supplemental petition was filed by supporters of Ms. Duterte and was filed by Davao’s lawyer, Israeli P. Torreon.
Mr. Torreon, who is also the lawyer for Mr. Duterte and the apocalyptic missionary Mr. Apollo Queberoy, asked the court to declare the impeachment article invalid because they failed to meet the constitutional requirements for verification and proper litigation.
The request also claimed that the House failed to give Ms. Duterte due process before sending the complaint to the Senate.
The copy of the petition says: “The petitioner respects the honorary court to intervene immediately and demands the Philippine Senate to conduct an improvisation trial.”
“This supplemental petition provides a critical development update to the court as the original petition was filed and stresses the urgent need for temporary restraining orders to prevent irreparable harms and to retain the constitutional right of the Vice President awaiting judicial review of the effectiveness of improvisation,”
They believe that although impropriety is inherently political, it must be guided by the minimum requirements for constitutional due process, legitimacy and compliance with the rule of law.
Mr. Torreon told reporters outside the court, 19Th Next month, Congress will soon be replaced by a new group of lawmakers who have no jurisdiction over the case.
He added that they will propose a form of expression to inform the High Court of the latest developments in the House and Senate.
“The jurisdiction of the Senate as an impeachment court is not permanent, infinite or self-sustained in different legislative parliaments,” the plaintiff said. “This is constitutionally and institutionally dependent on the continuity of the Senate, and the provisions of the impeachment each were received.”
“20Th Congress takes over and resumes an unresolved trialTh Congress is an unconstitutional usurpation of jurisdiction, which violates the principle of legislative discontinuity and undermines the integrity of the improper process. ” Kenneth Christian L. Basilio,,,,, Chloe Mari A. Hufana and Adrian H. Halili
