'Legally correct but rather unfair'

Ex-justices, legal experts weigh in on SC ruling

- JANVIC MATEO and ELIZABETH MARCELO

While it may be legally correct, the Supreme Court (SC) decision on the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte is "rather unfair," former SC associate justice Adolfo Azcuna said.

In a statement yesterday posted on Facebook, Azcuna said the High Court's decision gave a "new definition" to what constitutes the initiation of an impeachment complaint.

"Recall that in the Davide case, the Supreme Court defined initiating an impeachment complaint as putting it in the order of business and referring it to a proper committee. This was not done to the three earlier complaints in this case," he said.

"The new definition, however, would now cover a situation where the complaints were not referred to a committee and, after the lapse of the time to do so, archived, and thus, the Supreme Court said, 'effectively dismissed,' Azcuna added.

He noted that the House of Representatives relied on the prevailing definition at the time, which was also based on a previous SC decision.

The lower chamber archived the first three complaints against Duterte and instead decided on a fourth complaint.

For Azcuna, it would be unfair to apply the new definition on the complaint "as it was precisely adopted in reliance on the Supreme Court's then prevailing definition." He urged the High Court to issue a supplemental resolution and apply the Doctrine of Operative Facts, wherein "the action and things done will be treated as valid, and the new definition will be applied prospectively, i.e. to future cases." "In this way, I respectfully submit, the people's unwavering demand for accountability now will be served, and the trial in the Senate can still, and finally, proceed forthwith," he added.