Francisco Jr. vs House of Representatives

[pandisal]

---

common black propaganda ba. dugangi mas brutal like mga murderer ang mga pari, juetang lord, drug lord, adulterers, corrupt. . . para mas shocking ba.

ahhh... nice... tell that to the marines!

but, its already known that some priest are doing that... and already been aknowledge by the vatican. and of course, i'm not saying silang tanan,... its just a few of them...

[FK]

dili na katuohan mga pari karon usahay kay daghan nang nanggawas nga balita nga uban nila manghilabot ug mga bata'ng lalaki!...

yeah mas ganahan ka mo too sa mga congressmen og politiko nga kasagaran mamakak kontra sa mga pari nga usahay ra.

dili kahibulongan mo too dayon ka sa istorya ni Defensor og sa iyahang witness.

[pandisal]

dili na katuohan mga pari karon usahay kay daghan nang nanggawas nga balita nga uban nilaÂ* manghilabot ug mga bata'ng lalaki!...

yeah mas ganahan ka mo too sa mga congressmen og politiko nga kasagaran mamakak kontra sa mga pari nga usahay ra.

dili kahibulongan mo too dayon ka sa istorya ni Defensor og sa iyahang witness.

see... you'r just eating your own word.... its also you nga dali ra mo tuo sa mga opposition sa ilang mga scandalo ug witnesses i' bomba sa gobyerno... I was just making a point here nga dili maayo nga mag tuo2x dayon ta kung unsa
naa sa medya... it really hurts,... labi ba nga trail by publicity. I know that gamay ra nga lugas sa mga pari,... but
if you blow it out of proportion like that, anyone will always get hurt.

ok, batck to OT, again w/ "Francisco Jr. Vs House of Representive"...


Francisco Jr. vs House of Representatives

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.

Sassy Lawyer
-----
Connie Veneracion

[s.n.m.p.]

Wa ko magdahum nga PRO GMA diay daku ni si Sassy Lawyer, Connie VeneracionÂ* the no. 1 blogger sa pinas karun.Â* Pagkasayang bayhana.Â* Tsk.

[pandisal]

Wa ko magdahum nga PRO GMA diay daku ni si Sassy Lawyer, Connie VeneracionÂ* the no. 1 blogger sa pinas karun.Â* Pagkasayang bayhana.Â* Tsk.

Yah I know... is that weird!? :P anywaz, she's just pointing out the empeachment rules and how both sides are arguing... nothing else, it's just that plain and simple rule,...Â*

Its so ironic for anyone to make a comments that negates the oppositions arguement to be considered on the administration side, specifically as PRO GMA...

[FK]

O.T.

see... you'r just eating your own word.... its also you nga dali ra mo tuo sa mga opposition sa ilang mga scandalo ug witnesses i' bomba sa gobyerno...

it's not that dali ra ko mo too sa gipagawas sa opposition. wala pa ko ni too sa mga gipa-gawas ana nilang mga jueteng witnesses. ang ako ra gi-toohan kay katong wiretapped recordings nga ang mismo tingog ni GMA og kang Garci ang nasakpan.

Kong dili pa ka dali2x mo too... on the time nga ni gipagawas ang news ni Defensor wala dayon onta ka ni ingon nga "The tables are turned."

back to OT (Original Topic)

So why don't they just let the 3 complaints be merge into 1? The case of Chief Justice Davide was that there was a clear

2 impeachment complaint where it was submitted to the justice committee on a separate date... while now there are 3 complaints which was submitted to the justice committee on the same date. So let's just stipulate all three and bring it on... Para dili sab ingnon ang Administration ba nga hadlok. Kay bisan onsaon nila og palusot nga "RULE OF LAW" ilang gi-follow dili jud sila toohan.

Kay ang original Lozano complaint revolves mainly on Betrayal of Public Trust... which is very general. Dayon dili nila dawaton ang ammended complaints kay naa kono bag-o nga kaso og bag-ong ebidensiya. Ngano man sa panahon ni ERAP naa man bag-ong nanggawas nga kaso og ebidensiya while the Justice Committee is deciding on it gidawat man...

[s.n.m.p.]

Wa ko magdahum nga PRO GMA diay daku ni si Sassy Lawyer, Connie VeneracionÂ* the no. 1 blogger sa pinas karun.Â* Pagkasayang bayhana.Â* Tsk.

Yah I know... is that weird!? :P anywaz, she's just pointing out the empeachment rules and how both sides are arguing... nothing else, it's just that plain and simple rule,...Â*

Its so ironic for anyone to make a comments that negates the oppositions arguement to be considered on the administration side, specifically as PRO GMA...

Bisan ni angkon na si GMA nga iyaha tong tingog sa tape? Dong, waiver na jud to dong ni GMA. Niangkon na gud siya unya ang mga bagag nawong nga congressman ila pag gyud tabunan ang pag angkon ni GMA.

Naunsa man tawon mo uy.

[wanderlust]

@Pandisal
Fr. Joaquin Bernas may be a Catholic figure... but does a leader of the Church not a citizen of the country?Â* If you say that his opinion doesn't not counts... why was he included in the resource person of the Supreme Court.

That is right, his opinion counts. However, as I have stated in another thread here, you must remember that the Supreme Court, in making its decision, did not merely rely on current opinions of former delegates to the Constitutional Convention, but looked into the actual records of the deliberations of the framers of the Constitution, in order to ascertain the intent of the law.

In fairness to Fr. Bernas, he presents sound arguments; however, a Supreme Court decision overrules mere legal opinion.

[wanderlust]

how can the Lower House acted on a complaint without it reaching the Justice Committee. Â*This impeachment proceedings that we have now, is one of a kind where 3 complaints have reached the Justice Committee to act upon. Â*Why would they now allow all complaints to be combined all together, it's allowed in law right? Â*Coz it will fast track the proceedings.

The thing is, the amended impeachment complaint prepared and signed by the opposition brings up new charges that were not included in the Lozano complaint and alters the substance of the first complaint.Â* Being so, it is in reality a new impeachment complaint, instead of a mere amendment.

as the statement quoted below the main purpose of the limitation of impeachment filing is to...

Commissioner Villacorta: "Does this mean that even if evidence is discovered to support another charge ... a second ... proceeding cannot be initiated [within] one year? ... The intention may be to protect the public official from undue harassment. [But] is this not undue limitation on the accountability of public officers?"

Commissioner Romulo: "Yes, the intention here really is to limit. This is not only to protect public officials... from harassment but also to allow the [Congress] to do its work, which is lawmaking. Impeachment proceedings take a lot of time.[/b]"

That's right.

Since GMA was not yet filed an impeachment complaint b4 July 25, 2005... which we can not say was harrassed by impeachment complaint as the case of Chief Justice Davide... and Congress has a lot of work to do, so let's just joined them altogether.

That would be impossible...as I have said above, the amended complaint is in reality a separate complaint.Â* Thus the one-year bar should apply.

If they want to close out this issue... now is the right time, coz if the impeachment complaint will be thrown out, the opposition camp can bring it again next year. Â*So better joined it all together now.

btw... w/o the impeachment your beloved GMA can't answer the allegations. Â*That she's a cheat and used all her power to influence/used the COMELEC (especially Garci) and AFP in achieving her goal to surpass her father.

Dude, my beloved GMA?Â* You're letting your emotions run away with you again.Â* In an impeachment case, where the accused faces the serious consequence of removal from office, the laws are strictly construed against the State--not against the accused.

See, that's the main difference between us--I stick to the law while all you have are allegations.

[FK]

The thing is, the amended impeachment complaint prepared and signed by the opposition brings up new charges that were not included in the Lozano complaint and alters the substance of the first complaint.Â* Being so, it is in reality a new impeachment complaint, instead of a mere amendment.

isn't receiving jueteng money a betrayal of public trust?Â* isn't using public funds for her personal gains betrayal og public trust?Â* Isn't corruption betrayal og public trust?Â* Please answer my questions.Â*

mao ganing gi ammend para ma-klaro kong onsa jud ang nabuhat ni GMA.Â* Betrayal og public trust is very general...Â* gi specify lang sa ammended complaint kong onsa ang mga gibuhat ni GMA in betraying the publics trust.Â* If betrayal of public trust is all about lying... then sa una pa guilty na daan si GMA of betrayal of public trust.

The additional charges in the ammended complaint are all betrayal of public trust just given a different name.

In an impeachment case, where the accused faces the serious consequence of removal from office

If she has solid evidences which her lawyer claims... then she has nothing to fear of.