Francisco Jr. vs House of Representatives

[wanderlust]

---

by Connie Veneracion

Three impeachment complaints have been filed against President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The first was filed by lawyer Oliver Lozano. The second was filed by lawyer Jose Rizalino Lopez and the third is the one signed by over 40 congressmen.

Why is it important to know how many complaints there are? Well, see, the Constitution prohibits the initiation of more than one impeachment proceeding within a year.

In Tuesday’s hearings, Bukidnon Rep. Teofisto Guingona III moved that all three complaints be discussed, in form and in substance, by the justice committee. That motion cannot be acted upon unless the issue of the one-year prohibition is resolved. Since Lozano was the first to file a complaint, should Lopez’ and the opposition’s complaints be discussed at all or should they be thrown out at this early stage as being in violation of the one-year prohibition?

According to an ABS-CBN news report, Rep. Francis Escudero “said the Constitution only prohibits the initiation of impeachment proceedings and not the filing of additional complaints.� Perhaps, the representative from Sorsogon has not read the Supreme Court decision in the case of Francisco Jr. vs House of Representatives (G.R. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003), otherwise known as the Davide impeachment case, where it was held that the one-year period should be counted from the date of the filing of the first complaint irrespective of whether the Lower House acted favorably or unfavorably on it. In hearing the case, the Supreme Court invited known constitutionalists including members of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution, one of whom was Fr. Joaquin Bernas. Below are the most salient portions of the decision:

“Father Bernas concludes that when Section 3 (5) says: “No impeachment proceeding shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year,� it means that no second verified complaint may be accepted and referred to the committee on justice for action. By his explanation, this interpretation is founded on the common understanding of the meaning of “to initiate� which means to begin. He reminds that the Constitution is ratified by the people, both ordinary and sophisticated, as they understand it; and that ordinary people read ordinary meaning into ordinary words and not abstruse meaning, they ratify words as they understand it and not as sophisticated lawyers confuse it.

“To the argument that only the House of Representatives as a body can initiate impeachment proceedings because Section 3 (1) says “The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment,� This is a misreading of said provision and is contrary to the principle of reddendo singula singulis by equating “impeachment cases� with “impeachment proceeding.�

“From the records of the Constitutional Commission, to the amicus curiae briefs of two former constitutional commissioners, it is without a doubt that the term “to initiate� refers to the filing of the impeachment complaint coupled with Congress’ taking initial action of said complaint.

“Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing and referral or endorsement of the impeachment complaint to the House committee on justice or, by the filing by at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives with the secretary general of the House, the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated, another impeachment complaint may not be filed against the same official within a one year period.�

Underscore mine. Let us now apply the decision to the current impeachment proceedings in the Lower House. It is not denied that Lozano was the first to file a complaint. Neither is it denied that his complaint was endorsed by two members of the House. Now relate those facts with the underscored phrase in the quoted portion of the Supreme Court decision. Clearly, the prohibition has set in. I really don’t see how Guingona, Escudero and even San Juan Rep. Ronaldo Zamora, a lawyer, can keep insisting that all three complaints be discussed in form and in substance.

Now, let us go into why the opposition keeps insisting that all three complaints be discussed at the same time. Well, see, Lozano’s complaint is critically flawed. Its substance consists of “betrayal of public trust arising from the ‘Gloriagate’ tapes.� But the tapes are illegal wire-taps and are, therefore, inadmissible as evidence. What happens to flawed complaints? They get torn into thousands of tiny pieces and unceremoniously tossed into the garbage can.

On the other hand, the third complaint — the one prepared and signed by opposition congressmen — enumerates many allegations and Gloriagate is only one of them. In short, unless the opposition can get the justice committee to agree to accept the third complaint, the impeachment case will never go to trial. These people don’t care about the law; they just want to have their way. Opposition impeachment spokesperson Allan Peter Cayetano proved that when he said that if the charges don’t get a fair hearing, they would take their evidence to the public instead of the justice committee. Ironic, isn’t it, when it is their job to make laws.

The opposition even goes so far as to call for justice committee chairman Simeon Datumanong to inhibit himself from the proceedings mainly because he made public statements that the Gloriagate tapes are inadmissible as evidence and because he is aware of the one-year prohibition rule. Darn, he shouldn’t take part in the proceedings because he knows the law? Really... The opposition will never cease to amaze me.

http://www.manilastandardonline.com:...ion_aug18_2005

[s.n.m.p.]

Asus, technicalities. Besides di man na applicable sa impeachment ni GMA. Anyway ato bukiki-on asa na gi post ang article. Atong gamitan ug lente.

Wow, bay! Manila Standard! Way credibility nga news sipsip sa admin.

Kamo ray bahala mo husga.

[wanderlust]

Asus, technicalities.Â* Besides di man na applicable sa impeachment ni GMA.Â* Anyway ato bukiki-on asa na gi post ang article.Â* Atong gamitan ug lente.

Wow, bay! Manila Standard! Way credibility nga news sipsip sa admin.

Kamo ray bahala mo husga.

Have you even read the Supreme Court decision on the Davide impeachment case? The article merely discusses the relevant portions in said decision.

And of course the decision is applicable in the current impeachment proceedings. It's jurisprudence.

[FK]

what the Constitution prohibits. It prohibits the initiation of more than one "impeachment proceeding." It does not necessarily prohibit more than one complaint. More than one complaint would be prohibited only if the multiple complaints would require more than "one proceeding." But if they can be logically and conveniently combined into one proceeding, there would be no violation of the Constitution.

have you read the opinion from Fr. Joaquin Bernas lately?

it was held that the one-year period should be counted from the date of the filing of the first complaint irrespective of whether the Lower House acted favorably or unfavorably on it.

not from the minute or from the second... the 3 complaints were endorsed on the same date... usahon na lang na nila...

[jerx d great]

abi nimo bai, kana gung balaod naa jed na siyay bangag nga kunga ang modepensa ana banga nga abogado, makalusot jed tong gustong molusot sa balaod.....

maytag dili unta malutsan ang atong balaod.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pandisal]

mao, pareha gud sa salida nga apike na kaau ang bida, maka himo pa gyud ug imposible! mao na
mga artista na gyud ato ibutang diha sa gobyerno kay mao man love sa mga tawo! woot!!!!Â* :mrgreen:

"BOY AVUNDA for Presiden 2010!!!"
"CRIS ACWINO for Vice President 2010"

hay..., nice! ...

[s.n.m.p.]

Asus, technicalities.Â* Besides di man na applicable sa impeachment ni GMA.Â* Anyway ato bukiki-on asa na gi post ang article.Â* Atong gamitan ug lente.

Wow, bay! Manila Standard! Way credibility nga news sipsip sa admin.

Kamo ray bahala mo husga.

Have you even read the Supreme Court decision on the Davide impeachment case? The article merely discusses the relevant portions in said decision.Â* Â*

And of course the decision is applicable in the current impeachment proceedings.Â* It's jurisprudence.

Leave the issue to the lawyers. Di ta mag pa akil akil ug discuss kay wa tay alamag anang balaod.

[FK]

Leave the issue to the lawyers. Di ta mag pa akil akil ug discuss kay wa tay alamag anang balaod.

pero ang gi-sultihi sab ni Fr. Bernas is

that ordinary people read ordinary meaning into ordinary words and not abstruse meaning, they ratify words as they understand it and not as sophisticated lawyers confuse it

tan-awa kinsa ang ga libog2x si Lagman... I guess he's an attorney. Fr. Bernas has already said his peice about this issue... dili lang gihapon sila mo too kay para ni Fr. Bernas once maka abot sa Senate.

They must realize that if the "bill of particulars" is elevated to the Senate, the President will be tarred and feathered and be made to squirm. I guess we must bemoan the conclusion that the presidential defenders and their client do not wish to face the music.

[wanderlust]

what the Constitution prohibits. It prohibits the initiation of more than one "impeachment proceeding." It does not necessarily prohibit more than one complaint. More than one complaint would be prohibited only if the multiple complaints would require more than "one proceeding." But if they can be logically and conveniently combined into one proceeding, there would be no violation of the Constitution.

have you read the opinion from Fr. Joaquin Bernas lately?

it was held that the one-year period should be counted from the date of the filing of the first complaint irrespective of whether the Lower House acted favorably or unfavorably on it.

not from the minute or from the second... the 3 complaints were endorsed on the same date... usahon na lang na nila...

Dude, mali yata ang nilagyan mo ng emphasis.Â* Eto o, ulitin ko yung quote mo:

it was held that the one-year period should be counted from the date of the filing of the first complaint irrespective of whether the Lower House acted favorably or unfavorably on it.

The first complaint is Lozano's. Thus it should be the one tackled.

[s.n.m.p.]

Excerpts from the Francisco ruling :

SEC. 14. Scope of Bar. — No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within the period of one year.



The interpretation of the Twelfth Congress, however, is such a radical departure from previous interpretations that it cannot be accorded the same great weight normally due it. Depending on the mode of the filing of the complaint, the impeachment proceedings are “deemed� initiated only:



(1) on the day the Committee on Justice finds that the verified complaint and/or resolution against such official, as the case may be is sufficient in substance; or



(2) on the date the House votes to overturn or affirm the finding of said Committee that the verified complaint and/or resolution, as the case may be, is not sufficient in substance; or



(3) at the time of the filing of such verified complaint or resolution of impeachment with the Secretary General.


Therefore 3 ka paagi when the complaint is deemed initiated. Now, if they choose option No. 3 patay gyud ang 3rd complaint. Pero either 1 and 2 gani ila gamiton pwede i consolidate ang 3 ka complaint. Therefore, mosulod na dayun ang tyranny of the numbers asay ila gusto i apply. Number 1 ba? Number 2? or Number 3?