House junks 3 impeach raps vs GMA

November 19, 2008

The tyranny of the House majority was once again full play as the House committee on justice dismissed yesterday two other impeachment complaints and a motion for intervention filed against President Arroyo, setting for today a battle royale between the impeachment proponents and administration lawmakers in the determination of sufficiency in substance in the complaint lodged by Jose “Joey” de Venecia III, son of ousted Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr.

For the nth time, it was Baguio City Rep. Mauricio Domogan who moved for the dismissal of the three other complaints filed by lawyer Guillermo Sotto on Oct. 23, 2008; a motion to intervene filed by 11 individuals led by Manuel Quezon III last Nov. 12 pertaining to inclusion of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MoA-AD), along

along with yet one more complaint filed by perennial impeachment complainant, lawyer Oliver Lozano last Nov. 17.

Domogan, already branded as the “Railroad Man” for allegedly trying to railroad every crucial House measure intended to benefit the administration, stressed that the three other complaints should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the committee.

With a vote of 35 against four, the panel junked the three complaints.

In dismissing all three complaints, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, vice chairman of the committee, explained that the committee’s unanimous decision upholding the impeachment complaint filed by a group led by De Venecia III sufficient in form means that the impeachment complaint against Mrs. Arroyo has been already initiated.

“The nomenclature of the pleading is immaterial. It could be labeled as a supplemental complaint, amended complaint or complaint-in-intervention,” Lagman pointed out. “These are all subject to the constitutionally imposed one-year ban rule after an impeachment complaint has been properly and seasonably filed and initiated. After the commencement of the one-year ban and before it lapses, all subsequent complaints of whatever nature or nomenclature are prohibited pleadings or complaints.

“The Sotto complaint and the Quezon complaint-in-intervention and the Lozano complaint-in-intervention belong to this class of prohibited pleadings considering the proper filing and initiation of the De Venecia III, et al. complaint. Perforce, the Committee on Justice is devoid of any jurisdiction or competence to consider them,” said Lagman, who is also known to have instantly killed the previous impeachment bids against the President.

Before the committee went to a vote, Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casiño expressed apprehension over Quezon City Rep. Matias Defensor’s position to declare the three other complaints as prohibited pleadings as he appealed to the committee to allow the motion for intervention on the MoA-AD to be included in the complaint, saying that this matter should be considered for the ordinary Filipino to be given the opportunity of hearing this important issue.

Casiño made this comment in reaction to Defensor’s opening statement which said: “The complaint for intervention is immature, and clearly a collateral accessory to the original impeachment complaint. Therefore the chairman rules that the same be returned to the original proponent.”

Administration Rep. Raul Gonzales Jr. retorted saying it was the opposition that should be blamed for the non-inclusion of the three other impeachment complaints after its members refused to liberalize the House Rules on Impeachment Proceedings during the 13th Congress.

Reacting to the committee decision, Quezon III hinted that their group may raise the issue before the Supreme Court (SC).

“It is the obligation of the House of Representatives to fortify and strengthen the case to involve every issue… We are now studying whether to bring this issue up to the Supreme Court for grave abuse of discretion,” Quezon told reporters.

Casiño, Bayan Muna Rep. Satur Ocampo, Gabriela Rep. Liza Maza and Makati Rep. Abigail Binay were the only opposition members who opposed the dismissal of three impeachment complaints.

With the dismissal of the three other complaints, the stage is now set for an all-out war between the impeachment proponents and Malacañang’s foot soldiers as the committee tackles the delicate issue of the test in the sufficiency in substance of the De Venecia complaint.

Historically, no impeachment complaint against Mrs. Arroyo has survived this crucial stage as all complaint filed against the President from 2005 to 2007 have been dismissed for failing to meet sufficiency in substance.

House Deputy Speaker for Mindanao and Maguindanao Rep. Simeon Datumanong, former chairman of the House committee on justice, explained that in determining the substance of the complaint, it should constitute a “recital of ultimate facts” of the offense charged.

But Casiño stressed that the committee should instead allow a simple statement of facts as test of proof will come after the determination of probable cause.

Casiño scored Defensor for allegedly trying to set the tone of the hearing in his statement Tuesday citing the legal error of the committee chairman is his interpretation that the determination of an impeachment complaint’s sufficiency in substance is equivalent to finding probable cause.

In his statement, Defensor said the recital of facts constituting the offense charged must allege “the events, actions, occurrences or documents that actually exist, existed or happened” supported by the evidence attached to the complaint that engenders a well grounded belief.

He went on to define facts as “an actual and absolute reality, as distinguished from mere supposition or opinion. A truth, as distin-guished from fiction or error.”

But Casiño said Defensor misinterpreted the rule as there are three distinct stages under the rules governing impeachment.

First is finding of sufficiency in form, second is finding of sufficiency in substance, (after which the respondent is furnished a copy of the Complaint and given the opportunity to file Answer); and lastly, finding of probable cause, upon finding of sufficient ground for impeachment, in which case the committee considers the pleadings submitted and conducts a hearing, which is provided for in Section 6 of impeachment rules.

“If, as the chairman alleges, that the finding of sufficiency in substance is already the finding of probable cause, then what will be the use of a hearing under Section 6?” Casiño asked. “If the chairman’s theory is correct, the hearing in section 6 is superfluous.”

“The logic of Rule 3 is linear—sufficiency in form is first determined before finding sufficiency in substance. And then, notice to respondent and submission of pleadings are required only once sufficiency in substance is found. Probable cause hearings can only be conducted upon the notification, of course, of the respondent and the submission of memoranda if any,” Casiño said as he stressed that probable cause and evidence of absolute truth cannot go hand in hand.

In response, Defensor said his statement is not meant to influence the other members of the panel and was only a statement of his opinion.

Meanwhile, Maza, in a statement issued after the hearing, asserted that the hearings conducted by the committee on justice should finally provide the venue for all the serious charges outlined in the 97-page complaint to be heard saying the justice committee holds responsibility in hearing out the cases.

“All these legitimate and serious complaints constitute an impeachable offense. All the members of the justice committee are duty bound to hear them out and all forms of railroading the process have no room in this matter.

“It is high time for President Arroyo to answer all these charges against her. The House justice committee has the prime accountability to thoroughly deliberate on this matter. This should be dealt with utmost significance as the Filipino people have long sought to achieve justice.”

Among the concrete charges included in the complaint are electoral fraud, human rights violations and bribery under the Arroyo regime, ZTE-NBN deal, North Rail Project, and the Fertilizer scam.

Majority of the members of the committee on justice Tuesday agreed to declare the 97-page complaint sufficient in form, but Congressman Jala argued that the complaint should be returned to the complainants because they failed to categorically state that the one-year ban against filing an impeachment petition had lapsed.

Bookmark to: