Manila: Retired Supreme Court Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban cited the landmark Avelino v. Cuenco ruling on Wednesday as he urged the Senate to look beyond abstract arithmetic in determining the votes needed to convict Vice President Sara Duterte. Speaking as an amicus curiae (friend of the court), Panganiban questioned whether senators who had not examined the evidence or heard the witnesses should be allowed to vote in the impeachment trial.
According to Philippines News Agency, Panganiban acknowledged that two-thirds of the Senate's 24 members equals 16. He, however, told senator-judges that interpreting the Constitution also requires examining the purpose of its provisions and the circumstances in which they operate. He identified Avelino v. Cuenco among the decisions cited in his presentation, while leaving their detailed discussion to his fellow retired magistrates.
Avelino involved the quorum, or minimum attendance needed for the Senate to conduct business, in the election of Mariano Cuenco as Senate president. The Supreme Court's March 4, 1949 resolution recorded four justices' reasoning that Senator Tomas Confesor's absence abroad left 23 members for that computation, making 12 a majority. On reconsideration, the Court upheld the quorum and Cuenco's election. The dispute concerned Senate quorum, rather than the votes needed for an impeachment conviction.
In discussing constitutional interpretation, Panganiban described both the plain meaning of words and an approach that examines the reason behind a law. 'We must look at the intent and the purpose of constitutional provisions, the circumstances in which they operate, and the goals they seek to achieve,' he said.
For senators deciding an impeachment case, however, he urged an approach guided by the people's common sense and the standards of truth and fairness. He said their role as elected representatives did not require them to decide as lawyers or judges. Panganiban tied those standards to the work of examining documents, listening to testimony, and observing witnesses' behavior on the stand.
'In this connection, is it truthful and fair to allow senators to cast their votes despite being absent from the proceedings?' he asked. He followed with a question about senators who were abroad, in hiding, detained, sick, hospitalized, or otherwise absent and who had not examined the documents, heard the testimony, or observed the witnesses.
He urged the Senate to complete its examination of both sides before issuing its decisions. 'Thus, the Senate must hear the prosecution and the defense witnesses, as it already does, allow their counsels to argue verbally and in writing, and study their presentations deeply,' Panganiban said.
On whether a Senate judgment could be appealed, Panganiban said it was final and unappealable, while recognizing Supreme Court review for grave abuse of discretion. 'In simpler terms, the court does not review the Senate's judgment merely because the court disagrees with the judgment,' he said. He explained that review arises when the Senate acts capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily, exceeding its constitutional authority.
Panganiban closed by calling for active participation in reaching a verdict fair to the parties and the Filipino people. 'Indeed, meaningful adjudication requires active participation in the search for truth and fairness.'
