Default modelResearch answer
In short
If the Senate’s decision to lower the impeachment voting threshold to 13 votes involves grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, a petition may be filed before the Supreme Court for certiorari under Rule 65, but only by a person with legal standing. The requirement of standing is a threshold issue and not every person who feels aggrieved will automatically have standing to bring such a petition. This is so even though the Senate has the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases.
Explanation
- First, the Senate must be acting as a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the impeachment trial process, because Rule 65 applies to “tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.” (1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65, Section 1)
- Second, the petition must allege that the Senate acted “without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.” (1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65, Section 1)
- Third, there must be “no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” (1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65, Section 1)
- Fourth, the petitioner must have legal standing, which is a preliminary issue before the Court can inquire into the validity of the Senate's act, as clarified in Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez. Not every person aggrieved will have standing; the petitioner must show a direct and substantial interest in the case.
- Fifth, the petition must be “verified,” allege the facts “with certainty,” and pray for the proper relief such as “annulling or modifying the proceedings.” (1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65, Section 1)
- Sixth, the Supreme Court is the proper court for a certiorari-type petition, because it has “original jurisdiction” over “petitions for certiorari.” (1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5)
- Seventh, even with the Senate’s “sole power to try and decide,” the Supreme Court may still review grave abuse of discretion connected to impeachment trial proceedings, because the Supreme Court has a constitutional duty to determine grave abuse and to correct it, and Francisco held that impeachment is not left to the Senate’s sole discretion when safeguards are allegedly breached. (1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 1; 1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 3; Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261 (2003-11-10))
Based on the sources you provided, the answer is that a petition may be filed before the Supreme Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, even though the Senate tries impeachment, but only by a person with legal standing and provided the Rule 65 requirements (especially the grave abuse allegation, the absence of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, and the standing requirement) are satisfied by the facts of the case.
- a constitutional provision is among the sources and controls over any conflicting statute
“Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.”
This means the Supreme Court has the duty to look at claims of grave abuse of discretion by a government branch, and to determine whether grave abuse amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction happened.
“When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.”
This lays down the basic rule: if the Senate, acting in its impeachment-trial role, allegedly acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, an aggrieved person may file a verified petition for the Supreme Court to annul or modify the proceedings.
“The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.”
This supports that petitions for certiorari can be brought to the Supreme Court directly, which matters because a Rule 65 grave-abuse petition is in the nature of certiorari.
“The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.”
This confirms the Senate’s impeachment-trial authority, but it does not automatically mean the Supreme Court is powerless to review grave abuse in how that authority is exercised.
Laws retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.
“Nor can it reasonably support the interpretation that it necessarily confers upon the Senate the inherently judicial power to determine constitutional questions incident to impeachment proceedings.”
This means the Senate’s “sole power” to try and decide impeachment cases does not automatically block judicial review by the Supreme Court of grave abuse connected to impeachment proceedings.
“In the colorful words of Father Bernas, '[w]e have cut the umbilical cord.' The major difference between the judicial power of the Philippine Supreme Court and that of the U.S. Supreme Court is that while the power of judicial review is only _impliedly_ granted to the U.S. Supreme Court and is discretionary in nature, that granted to the Philippine Supreme Court and lower courts, _as expressly provided for in the Constitution_ , is not just a power but also a duty , and it was given an expanded definition to include the power to correct any grave abuse of discretion on the part of any government branch or instru…
This settles that the Supreme Court has a duty-based power to correct grave abuse of discretion by any government branch, which includes reviewing how impeachment trials are conducted when the claim meets the grave abuse standard.
“Thus, they call upon this Court to exercise judicial statesmanship on the principle that 'whenever possible, the Court should defer to the judgment of the people expressed legislatively, recognizing full well the perils of judicial willfulness and pride.'56 But did not the people also express their will when they instituted the above-mentioned safeguards in the Constitution? This shows that the Constitution did not intend to leave the matter of impeachment to the sole discretion of Congress.”
This clarifies that impeachment is not left entirely to the Senate’s sole discretion if the Constitution’s safeguards are allegedly breached through grave abuse.
Cases retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.