THE IMPEACHMENT CIRCUS IS IN TOWN

Disclaimer: Don't read my older posts, just this one. This was supposed to be a personal blog for my own amusement, however, I feel an irresistible urge to write about the new impeachment case. I know law students are supposed to be busy studying, but that doesn't mean that we're to turn a blind eye to events unfolding around us. Oh, and I'm no expert on the matter of impeachment by the way. If you want to read my plan first, scroll to the bottom of the post.

(Sourced from various news articles, mostly from INQ7.net)

Timeline:
1. Sunday evening, June 25 - between 200-300 people held a vigil outside the Batasan to bar people from filing frivilous impeachment cases which might constitute a bar, under the one-year rule, to the opposition's new impeachment case.

2. 8:09 am Monday, June 26 - the impeachment complaint (let's call it 2A), endorsed by House minority leader Francis Escudero and Rep. Ronaldo Zamora, among others, was filed before the Office of the House Secretary General. Several citizens groups and private individuals signed the impeachment complaint.

3. On the same day, PDI reports that Atty Oliver Lozano, the person who filed a "weak" impeachment complaint that was junked by Congress last year and which later became the basis for barring the opposition's "well-prepared" impeachment complaint, was laughing at the vigil, saying that he did not have to go to the Batasan Complex to refile his impeachment complaint and that he could do so (and hinted that he already did) through mail and email!!! (Uhm, I remember that civil cases may be filed by mail under the Rules of Court on civil actions, but the House Rules on Impeachment only refer to the Rules on Criminal Procedure as being applicable to impeachment proceedings.)

3. 8:10 am Tuesday. June 27 - ex-VP Teofisto Guingona files another impeachment complaint(2B), saying that the opposition's complaint might be hit by technicalities as regards the one-year bar rule. He says that his complaint was the same complaint filed by the opposition, but signed by different complainants. (Essentially, naninigurado lang daw siya)

4. Apparently, at around 7:20 am Tuesday, June 27, "the 66-year-old lawyer(Lozano) sent a notice yesterday to the office of Speaker Jose de Venecia that he was reviving the impeachment complaint(2C) he had filed last year against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo which was junked for lack of substance." (from a PDI article entitled Lozano Strikes Again published 6/28/06)
WWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTT????????? OMG!!!!!!!!!
According to Lozano, the records of the House show that he originally filed his impeachment complaint last year on June 27(1A).

5. In an interview on Tuesday, House Secretary General Nazareno dismissed Lozano's claim, saying that he should have filed it before his office and not before the office of the Speaker of the House. Nazareno said that Lozano might actually be correct regarding the date, but nonetheless his newly "refiled" impeachment complaint was not endorsed by the required number of congressmen.

6. 9:11 am, June 28 - Caloocan Bishop Deogracias Yniguez, representing the Kilusang Makabansang Ekonomiya (and not the CBCP), and the Akbayan party-list group filed another impeachment complaint, which is supposed to be the same complaint filed on June 26." This complaint was endorsed by Akbayan Rep. Loretta Ann Rosales. "Rosales said the daily filing of different sets of complainants until next week would prove that the impeach bid has the overwhelming support of the masses." (Malaya Online 6/29)

7. June 28 - Nograles calls Lozano's complaint a mere scrap of paper and says na hindi papatulan yun.

HERE COMES THE REALLY, REALLY CONFUSING PARTS...
A. Lozano now claims that he earlier refiled his complaint last May 16(1B) before the Office of the Secretary General. Nazareno claims that that complaint was returned for lack of endorsers and for being barred by the one year rule. Lozano denies that the complaint was returned, and insists that it 1) did not need to be endorsed as it was the same complaint last year which did have the required endorsements 2) is still on file at the Office of the Secretary General! [But Speaker JdV said they returned it because it was not endorsed]

B. Atty Macalintal claims that the newly filed opposition complaint(2A) is still barred by the one year rule! Why, you may ask? Because it is STILL PENDING ON APPEAL BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT!!! Yes, that's right ladies and gentlemen! The opposition appealed the dismissal of the impeachment case(1A) last year before the Supreme Court, who until now has not issued a decision on the case.

C. The chairman of the House Committee on Justice, Rep. Simeon Datumanong, claims that the "filing" of the complaint means the "initiation" of the complaint, which happens at the referral of the plenary to the committee. Last year's complaint was referred to the committee on July 26, 2005.

Now, which scenario should be applied?
1. The opposition has filed a timely impeachment case, and it is their prepared case which will be heard and voted on by Congress.
2. The opposition made a mistake of filing one day too early, Guingona's filing of the same impeachment complaint(2B) saves the day. Although the complainants are different, the allegations in 2B are the same in 2A, and the opposition is able to present the same case they prepared.
3. The opposition and Guingona make a mistake as to the proper date of filing. Yniguez is correct and saves the day.
4. Lozano is correct. His complaint filed in May(1B) is still on file, does not need to be endorsed as it is the same case which was properly endorsed the year before(1A), and should be the one deliberated upon by Congress. It will probably be massacred, same as last year.
5. Macalintal is correct. The impeachment case last year is still alive. As long as the Supreme Court does not issue a decision, the case will remain pending and an impeachment case cannot be filed against GMA until there is a decision by the SC, or withdraw their appeal. But in either case, they would still have to wait for another year.
6. Datumanong is correct. All the complaints will be dismissed for being barred by the one year rule. We will have to wait until July 26.

NOW, AS IF THAT WEREN'T ENOUGH TO WORRY ABOUT...
1. It's possible that it will be the House Committee on Justice who will decide which complaint, if ever, to hear. Its chairman, Rep. Simeon Datumanong, is a member of the administration LAKAS-CMD party. 4 0f the six vice-chairmen voted last year to junk the complaint(1A); Bueser (Laguna)-Liberal Party, Sumulong (Antipolo)-KAMPI, Baterina (Ilocos Sur-LAKAS, and Jesus Remulla (Cavite)-Nacionalista Party. One of the two vice-chairmen, Libanan, is a member of Lakas. Only Fuentebella, of the NPC, voted not to junk last year's impeachment complaint.
Of the members of the committee, 46 are sitting as members for the majority and only 11 are sitting for the minority (although that does not necessarily dictate what their votes will be).

2. Administration congressmen have been making statements that the opposition do not and cannot get the required 78 (or 79, again there's another controversy there because 2 congressmen have been appointed to be cabinet members) votes for the impeachment case to be tried before the Senate. I think this would apply regardless of whichever impeachment complaint will be held to be the one which was timely and properly filed. They are flaunting their superior numbers, and have constantly referred to the impeachment process as a "numbers game," even BEFORE the have read or deliberated on the new case (which I understand contains allegations not found in last year's case).

3. There have been rumors of internal strife among the opposition, with some saying that Escudero's leadership is being questioned by other opposition members who would rather see Rep. Alan Peter Cayetano or Rep. Ronaldo Zamora take over as minority floor leader. These rumors have been branded by some as being an administration attempt to divide the opposition and weaken their attempt to impeach GMA.

4. The opposition is not as solid as they want to be according to Rep. Etta Rosales. In fact, other opposition congressmen have said that they do not intend to support the impeachment complaint unless they will be assured that the required votes will be reached.

According to "The Sassy Lawyer" (http://www.sassylawyer.com) the congressmen do not have any real choice in the matter, they are performing a mere "ministerial duty," which means that they just have to see if the complaint is sufficient in form and substance. But then, I doubt a lot of congressmen understand what the term "ministerial duty" means. Even if they did know what it meant, they would still try to have their own way.

The complaint is supposed to be forwarded by the secretary general to the speaker of the house, within ten session days from receipt, who will then refer it to the committee on justice within three session days after. Three days later, the committee will come up with a resolution dismissing or approving the impeachment complaint. That resolution, whether approving or dsmissing the impeachment complaint, will be voted on by Congress, and a 1/3 vote of all the congressmen is necessary to approve the resolution calling for impeachment or to overrule the resolution dismissing the complaint.

So, some time will have to pass before all this happens. What can we do in the meantime?

THE PLAN
Now, instead of everyone hitting the streets in protest, I have an alternative. I have proposed this alternative to a member of the UP Diliman University Student Council who, I hope, will raise my plan before the council in their meeting tomorrow. I hope the council will adopt my plan and maybe other student councils or activists/NGOs/socio-civic organizations will follow suit.

The record of those who voted for and against the impeachment complaint last year is easily accessible. For example, I looked it up and saw that three QC congressmen voted to junk the impeachment complaint last year. I propose that the councils, organizations, socio-civic groups, etc. conduct signature campaigns petitioning the congressmen in their districts who voted to junk the impeachment complaint last year to allow the impeachment to push through. If anything, the petitions will send a message to the individual congressmen that their constituents are watching them closely, and how they vote will be monitored and made a factor in deciding who people will vote for in the coming elections.

If I were a congressman in QC and the UP, Ateneo and Miriam student councils gave me a petition with the signatures of over 30,000 students, I'd be having sleepless nights. A congressional district is composed of, what, around 250,000 voters? All you need to win is around 125,000 votes after all. If I were a congressman in Manila and all the school student councils near the University Belt (i.e. UE, San Beda, FEU, San Sebastian, UST, CEU, etc.) gave me a petition with a hundred thousand signatures I'd be scared out of my wits.

Surveys supposedly have shown that although Filipinos don't like Gloria, they don't want a huge disruption in our country, which I suppose refers to calls for people power and/or coup d'etats. So let's give them an alternative. It's difficult to ask people to attend mass demonstrations, but it's a lot less difficult to ask them to sign a petition.