Constitutional crisis feared over moves to compel CJ to show up at impeach probe
Senators on Monday said that a constitutional crisis is in the offing over moves to compel Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno to attend the impeachment proceedings against her at the House of Representatives.
“It may result in a constitutional crisis if the Chief Justice
refuses to attend,” said Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero.
“But if I remember correctly, the attendance or participation of the respondent in an impeachment case, or in any case for that matter, cannot be compelled to give evidence versus himself or herself even if he or she attends. I’m referring to compulsion to attend, and she refuses, (and) that may result in a constitutional crisis,” Escudero said.
Senate Minority leader Franklin Drilon pointed out that members of Congress cannot compel a witness who refuses to attend to an impeachment hearing.
“The power of Congress to issue a subpoena and order the detention of a witness who refuses to obey the subpoena is available only in investigations in aid of legislation,” Drilon said.
“It is not available in an impeachment proceeding. In effect, a subpoena will compel Sereno in an impeachment complaint to testify against herself,” he added.
He cautioned members of the House to be careful in using the powers of Congress to issue a subpoena against Sereno.
“I therefore urge Congressman Umali to exercise extreme caution in using the coercive powers of Congress to issue a subpoena against Sereno as there is no basis and will provoke a needless constitutional crisis,” he said.
Drilon is referring to Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, chairman of the House Committee on Justice which is hearing the impeachment case against Sereno.
Umali was quoted as saying his committee might be compelled to issue a subpoena and subsequently, an arrest warrant against Sereno if she refuses to participate in the impeachment proceedings.
Hypothetical But on Monday, Umali said the issuance of a warrant of arrest against Sereno should she fails to respond to the subpoena to be issued by the panel is “hypothetical.”
“Hypothetical naman ‘yun e, kaya nga nag-executive session kami ngayon para pag-usapan namin ‘yon kasi I was just speaking my mind because I firmly believe the extraordinary power given to the Committee on Justice as an impeachment committee is a constitutional mandate that ought to be followed by everyone,” he said, after some senators warned of constitutional crisis amid the continued refusal of Sereno to attend the impeachment deliberations.
Umali maintained that while they have constitutional mandate to perform, everyone, including the chief magistrate, should comply with it.
But Drilon pointed out that when the House of Representatives conducts a hearing on an impeachment complaint, the hearing is not in aid of legislation.
“The Chief Justice is not being asked to testify as a resource person who can be subpoenaed to assist the House of Representatives to discharge its legislative function,” he said.
Lawyers told to explain As this developed, two lawyers for the Chief Justice and an official of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) were ordered to explain in 72 hours why they should not be cited in contempt of the House Committee on Justice for allegedly trying to demean the ongoing impeachment proceedings.
Emerging from an executive meeting, the House Committee on Justice swiftly dispose of two motions proposing to give lawyers Joshua Santiago and Aldwin Salumbides, together with CHR Commissioner Roberto Cadiz, 72 hours to show up and explain.
With nobody objecting, Umali issued the show cause order to the Sereno lawyers after being quoted in newspaper criticizing the ongoing impeachment proceedings as a “dog and pony” show.
Cadiz was also directed to explain why he publicly assailed the impeachment proceedings as having observed the “law of the jungle.”
“I move that both lawyers (Santiago and Salumbides) to show cause why they should not be cited in contempt as statements they issued cast aspersions on the integrity of the members of the Justice Committee and the committee itself as we have merely taken upon ourselves to fulfill a constitutional mandate,” said Deputy Speaker Gwendolyn Garcia, who decried the actions of the Sereno lawyers.
SAGIP Party-list Rep. Rodante Marcoleta sought an amendment to Garcia’s motion by including Cadiz among the persons who should explain alleged attacks against the panel.
Salumbides allegedly claimed that the impeachment complaint filed by lawyer Lorenzo Gadon is “very shallow,” pointing out that there is no reason for the House panel to prolong the proceedings.
Garcia said Salumbides also insisted that the House panel’s moves were “logically incoherent and legally questionable.”
Santiago allegedly hinted bias against the House panel members as he allegedly stated that the lawmakers’ “minds are already made up.”
Willing to testify
Meanwhile, Supreme Court Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo De Castro, and Noel Tijam and other court officials have expressed willingness to appear before the House impeachment hearing once they are given “clearance” by the High Court en banc.
Before he called to order the impeachment hearing yesterday, Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali noted that they received the letters from current and former court officials dated November 24, 2017, expressing their intent to testify as they are still seeking the SC en banc’s final word.
“May I request that I be given time to seek clearance from the Court, during the en banc session on Tuesday, November 28, 2017, to produce at the hearing all the internal communications, memoranda and other documents relevant to the allegations in the Verified Impeachment Complaint. As soon as the said clearance is granted, I shall honor your invitation to attend the aforementioned hearing,” De Castro said in the letter read by Umali. (With reports from Ben R. Rosario, Charissa L. Atienza, and Leslie Ann G. Aquino)