Atty. Ernesto Francisco Jr., the petitioner in the landmark Supreme Court decision Francisco v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, 10th November 2003)—which ruled multiple impeachment complaints within a period of a year unconstitutional—has spoken out in favor of the High Court’s ruling in relation to the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte.
Francisco expressed full certainty in the legitimacy of the Supreme Court decision, and has been doing so even prior to the Senate debate on Wednesday.
“Ilang beses ko nang nabasa itong desisyon na ito, talagang pinag-aralan ko dahil nga sa Francisco v. House of Representatives. At ako ay kumbinsidong-kumbinsido bilang isang abogado na tama ang desisyon na ito. Bago pa man nag-debate sa Senado, sa mga interviews ko, sinasabi ko na na tama ito,” he said in an interview at Dos Por Dos Thursday morning.
The lawyer explained that the one-year bar period begins once an individual, even an ordinary citizen, files an impeachment complaint, and it is endorsed by a member of the House then subsequently referred to the Committee on Justice, according to the House rules on impeachment proceedings as amended by the Francisco ruling.
The House, in turn, must act on the complaint immediately—which it failed to do with the first three impeachment complaints filed on December 2, 4, and 19 in the previous year.
“Walang sinuman, kahit ‘yung House mismo, o House Speaker, o Secretary General ng House, ay may karapatang upuan ito. Ito ang nangyari dito sa naunang tatlong impeachment complaints. Inupuan nila, hindi nila inaksyunan. At ‘yan ay isang malaking paglabag hindi lamang sa Saligang Batas, kundi sa House rules on impeachment,” Francisco said.
“‘Yun ay isang grave abuse of discretion. Abuso ng pagpapasiya … ‘Yung Supreme Court, walang pinapanigan. Ang tiningnan lamang kung ano ‘yung sitwasyon at kung ano ‘yung Saligang Batas, at ano ‘yung dapat gawin ng House of Representatives,” he stressed.
To clarify, he added that once the complaint has been signed and sworn by an individual, and endorsed by a lawmaker, the Secretary General must promptly refer it to the Speaker, allowing its inclusion in the House’s agenda.
“Walang discretion ‘yung Secretary General kung ‘yung impeachment complaint ay pinirmahan ng isang mamamayan, pinanumpaan ng isang mamamayan, at inendorso ng isang miyembro ng Kamara. At dapat kaagad i-refer niya ‘yun sa Speaker para maisama ito ng Committee on Rules sa Order of Business,” Francisco said.
The House had not only 10 days, but 19, from the filing and endorsement of the first impeachment complaint on December 2, he stressed, later speculating this was due to the excessive length of the complaint that may not have been tackled in full before the House’s adjournment.
“Sa huling sandali, noong mayroon na silang impeachment complaint that was filed by at least 1/3 of the members of the House tsaka palang nila isinama ito sa Order of Business … Mali ‘yun,” he explained.
Moreover, the former petitioner hopes the High Court makes it clear in their response to the House of Representatives’ motion for reconsideration that the referral to the Committee on Justice is also required for impeachment cases signed by a third of the House, under Rule 2, Section 2, Paragraph C.
Having the complaint pass through the Committee on Justice ensures it is sufficient in form and substance, which he believes is not the case for this fourth complaint.
“With all due respect to the House, unang-unang pagkakamali diyan, isinama nila ‘yung mga charges noong mayor pa ‘yung sinasakdal nilang Bise Presidente o noong Secretary of Education pa siya. Hindi kasama ‘yan. Ang sinasabi ng Saligang Batas natin, at sa interpretasyon ng Korte Suprema, puwede mong sampahan ang isang impeachable official, tulad ng Vice President, sa mga pagkakamali niya noong siya ay Vice President,” he stated.
In addition, there are only six grounds for impeachment, namely: the culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, and the betrayal of public trust. However, the fourth complaint included more charges—potentially also the reason the House sat on the first one. It included allegations concerning relatives’ bank accounts and the extrajudicial killings that had allegedly occurred while Duterte was still mayor of Davao City.
“Sinasabi sa Saligang Batas, hindi lahat na akusasyon ay puwedeng isama sa impeachment complaint. Nakalahad doon, anim lang na puwedeng isama: betrayal of public trust, high crimes, graft and corruption, etc. Anim lang, pag hindi ganoon, tulad nitong fourth impeachment complaint na maraming isinama na hindi kasama doon, ay hindi dapat isama sa articles of impeachment,” he stressed.
“With all due respect, sadyang iniwasan ng House of Representatives ‘yung mahabang hearing dahil pag susuriin natin ‘yung impeachment complaint, ‘yung nauna na finile sa December 2, napakahaba. Twenty-four charges … at ‘yung House, mayroon lang 19 days na in session sila from December 3. Hindi matatapos. Kaya iniwasan,” he added.
After the Committee on Justice has approved the complaint, it will then be raised to the Senate.
In conclusion, Francisco said Duterte’s Constitutional right to due process was not recognized—which the High Court opposed and rectified. He agreed with the motion to archive the Articles of Impeachment, to set it aside for possible revival later on.
On Wednesday evening, the Senate moved to archive the impeachment complaint against Vice President Duterte following 19 affirmative votes, 4 negative votes, and one abstention.
