A PROMINENT legislator underscored the need for the House of Representatives to give premium on the merits of the impeachment case filed against Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen and not on suspicion for which the case was filed.

Interviewed over ANC, House Deputy Speaker Rufus Rodriguez said that Congress should not be joining the political fray between former Senator Ferdinand Marcos and Vice President Leni Robredo, who were locked in an electoral protest that was allegedly intentionally delayed by Leonen.

“We could not jump to the motive of filing or deciding whether or not it is political. We are going to look at the allegations in the complaints whether there are sufficient grounds and evidences for that,” said Rodriguez, himself a legal luminary, when asked to comment on allegations dragging the impeachment complaint as purely political in nature.

According to Rodriguez, while there may be some truth in the allegations of political motive behind the filing of the impeachment case against Leonen, all those have remained speculations.

“So of course, they are saying that this may be connected with the case of former Senator Bongbong Marcos and Vice President Robredo, but we will look beyond all of these allegations and suspicions and we have to go into the complaint,” he added.

Interestingly, Rodriguez admits he still has yet to formally receive a copy of the complaint, but vowed to look into its form and substance.

“If there is the existence of these two [form and substance], we will proceed now to requiring the answer, and once we have these documents, we will determine whether the sufficient grounds exist,” said the Deputy Speaker.

Rodriguez also warded off cynicisms amid fears that the House committee on justice may be used for a fishing expedition.

“Well, with me, I will not allow any attempt for a fishing expedition. Whatever documents were presented – that’s it. We are here hearing it [impeachment case]. We are not prosecutors at this time yet. We become prosecutors once there’s already an approval of the impeachment articles. But at this point we are here just to judiciously objectively find out whether there is ground,” he quipped.

The lower legislative chamber earlier insisted on its exclusive jurisdiction over the impeachment complaint filed against Leonen by journalist Edwin Cordevilla in his capacity as secretary-general of the Filipino League of Advocates for Good Government

“Impeachable officials, like Supreme Court associate justices, can only be removed by impeachment,” Rodriguez earlier said in a virtual press briefing.

“The Constitution is supreme over the rules of court, definitely. I believe that it was a mistake for the Supreme Court to proceed with the quo warranto especially because at that time Congress had already been hearing the impeachment,” he said.

Rodriguez was referring to the removal of then Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno through a quo warranto proceeding in the Supreme Court in 2018.

Quo warranto is a special legal action requiring a person to show by what warrant he occupies a public office or franchise and Sereno was removed because she was found to have failed to file her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) when she was a law professor at University of the Philippines (UP).

“It was a violation of the Constitution. It’s very clear, impeachable officials can only be removed by impeachment and there’s no statement there that the quo warranto can be used against an impeachable officer. So that should not be,” said Rodriguez.

If another quo warranto proceeding is allowed against Leonen, Rodriguez said Congress would “abdicate from its duties as enshrined in the Constitution.”

“So let Congress do its part to be able to comply with the Constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution will be dead letter law if that will not be observed,” he said.

In the impeachment complaint against Leonen, Cordevilla said the associate justice was “unfit to be a member of the judiciary” because the magistrate, like Sereno, failed to file his SALNs when he was a professor at the UP College of Law.

Leonen was also accused of being “negligent and incompetent” in resolving 37 cases in the Supreme Court in violation of the constitutional mandate that cases should be decided within 24 months from the time it is submitted for resolution.

“Administrative proceedings like these require substantial evidence,” he added.