Constitutional Debate Erupts Over Presiding Officer in VP Duterte's Impeachment Trial

MANILA, Philippines — A constitutional debate took center stage on the opening day of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial on Monday, July 6, after senators objected to the election of Sen. Chiz Escudero as the trial's presiding officer. Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, along with his sister, Sen. Pia Cayetano, raised concerns about the election of a presiding officer for the impeachment court, arguing that the Senate president should preside over the proceeding under the 1987 Constitution. The impeachment court, particularly members of the Sherwin Gatchalian-led majority, however, proceeded to elect Escudero to preside with 12 votes versus opposition's eight. The dispute has raised the question: What does the Constitution say about who should preside over an impeachment trial? Article 11, Section 3(6) of the 1987 Constitution states that when the president of the Philippines is on trial before an impeachment court, the chief justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. The chief justice, however, cannot vote, unlike senator-judges in an impeachment court. This was seen during the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada, where former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. presided. The Constitution, however, is silent on who should preside over the impeachment court when an impeachable official other than the president is on trial. The only time an impeachment trial proceeded without the chief justice presiding was during the impeachment of former Chief Justice Renato Corona. In an interview with Philstar.com, lawyer Evecar Cruz-Ferrer, a law professor from Ateneo de Manila University, said that if there is ambiguity in the provisions of the Constitution, one must refer to the discussions of the Constitutional Commission. "Since the Constitution is silent on the matter, checking the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission will help shed light as to the intent of the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution," Cruz-Ferrer said. When asked if the proceeding may be declared void if the election of a presiding officer is found unlawful, Cruz-Ferrer said: "Not necessarily, since it is just the issue of the impeachment officer." In a Facebook post, University of the Philippines College of Law professor Mike Tiu, citing jurisprudence, said the records of the Constitutional Commission should be consulted only when the primary guidelines for constitutional interpretation fail. "The intention is clear in the absence of an express provision. And because the power rests in the Senate, the Senate as a body can decide who the Presiding Officer could be," Tiu said. Article 11, Section 3(8) of the Constitution also states that "Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section." The impeachment proceeding against Duterte is expected to last for 92 days. The trial will allocate its timeline across the four articles of complaint, starting with Article IV, which will be tackled for 11 days and revolve around the alleged assassination plot, grave threats and inciting to sedition against the government. Article I will be designated for 31 days to address the alleged misuse and misappropriation of confidential funds. The trial will then move to Article III, with eight days allocated for charges of alleged bribery and corruption within the Department of Education. Finally, 12 trial days will be set aside for Article II, which covers allegations of unexplained wealth, false statements of assets, liabilities and net worth, and continued business interests.