a
No Constitutional and Legal Basis to Dismiss Impeachment
Published on Aug 5, 2006
Last Updated on Feb 5, 2011 at 9:02 am

ADVERTISEMENT

The position of Rep. Monico Puentebella that the complaints will be dismissed because they “contain no new issues” is both factually and legally baseless. The charges last year were never tackled as the amended complaint was dismissed, so it is unethical for members of congress to delude the people in this respect. Furthermore, the complaints contain new issues.

Members of the Justice Committee must realize that “the demands of due process present a weightier consideration than the need to bring an end to the parties’ litigation. For more important than the need to write finis to litigation is to finish it justly, and there can be no justice that satisfies unless the litigants are given the opportunity to be heard” as the Supreme Court demanded in Salud vs. CA (GR 100156, June 27, 1994). Killing the impeachment complaint not only on mere technicalities, but on legally baseless technicalities will virtually close another legal venue for justice for victims of political killings, no different from that during Marcos’ martial law.

Correct Filing Date

CODAL also finds legally untenable the contention of Rep. Edcel Lagman that last year’s impeachment complaint was initiated not upon the filing of the impeachment complaint but by the receipt of the Justice Committee of the complaints on July 26. The conflicting opinion of Rep. Prospero Nograles that the one-year ban starts on the date of the referral on July 25 is correct as it follows jurisprudence.

The contention of both, however, is a 360-degree turnaround for the Majority which insisted that the mere ‘filing’ of the Lozano complaint on June 26 last year initiated the impeachment proceedings thereby making the Amended impeachment complaint a “second complaint’ and therefore barred. It must be noted that the complainants last year were insisting that the complaint was initiated on the date of referral rather than filing and that, therefore, the Amended Complaint is not a “second complaint” since it was referred to the Justice Committee together with the Lozano Complaint on July 25, 2005 during the SONA of President Arroyo.

The Supreme Court , in Francisco vs. House of Representatives, (GR 160261, Nov. 10, 2003), has declared that an impeachment “proceeding is initiated or begins, when a verified complaint is filed and referred to the Justice Committee for action.” The decision is clear—an impeachment complaint is initiated upon the referral of the impeachment complaint on July 25 last year and not on the date that the Justice Committee received the complaint. The one-year ban therefore ends on July 25 of 2006 and the correct date for the filing of a valid impeachment complaint is July 26.

 Save as PDF

BE A BULATLAT PATRON

A community of readers and supporters that help us sustain our operations through microdonations for as low as $1.

ADVERTISEMENT

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This