Francisco Jr. vs House of Representatives

[pandisal]

---

@wanderlust ...dude, they don't have a concept of time...

[wanderlust]

Excerpts from the Francisco ruling :

SEC. 14.Â* 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.Â* Depending on the mode of the filing of the complaint, the impeachment proceedings are “deemedâ€� 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.Â* Now, if they choose option No. 3 patay gyud ang 3rd complaint.Â* Pero either 1 and 2 gani ila gamiton pwede i consolidate ang 3 ka complaint.Â* Therefore, mosulod na dayun ang tyranny of the numbers asay ila gusto i apply. Number 1 ba? Number 2?Â* or Number 3?

Dude, number 3 has occurred.Â* The excerpts you quoted answer the "when", not the "how".Â* Hindi iyan options.Â* Once one of the three has occurred, the impeachment proceedings are “deemedâ€� initiated, even if we go by that.

@pandisal: yeah, unfortunately.

[FK]

btw onsa nga impeachment ruling ilahang gigamit? dba it was the 11th congress.

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:

so ila gigamit karon as arguments is defining the initated impeachment proceedings kay ang 12th congress, nya ang gigamit karon kay 11th man... dayon kana nga definition sa 12th.. dili na ma apply.

para minus og lalis i-consolidate ng tanan.

[wanderlust]

cont.

Let us note, however, that the provisions of Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules which state that impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated (1) if there is a finding by the House Committee on Justice that the verified complaint and/or resolution is sufficient in substance, or (2) once the House itself affirms or overturns the finding of the Committee on Justice that the verified complaint and/or resolution is not sufficient in substance or (3) by the filing or endorsement before the Secretary-General of the House of Representatives of a verified complaint or a resolution of impeachment by at least 1/3 of the members of the House, has been declared in contravention of Section 3 (5) of Article XI since the rules give the term “initiate� a meaning different from filing and referral.

[FK]

@wanderlust:

this rules that you stated was it in 11th or 12th Congress?

pls. clarify and give us a link.

[wanderlust]

That would be the Twelfth Congress.Â* Got them here http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/juris...003/160261.htm

The aforementioned rules were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; consequently, the second impeachment complaint against Justice Davide was barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution.

[pandisal]

There will be no good interpretation of the empeachment rules by the either sides coz they will
always interprete it in the sence that will benefit their own side... this need more interpretation
by at least independent body... and please, don't include church... (we need to distance church
and the state on this). imho

[wanderlust]

There will be no good interpretation of the empeachment rules by the either sides coz they will
always interprete it in the sence that will benefit their own side... this need more interpretation
by at least independent body... and please, don't include church... (we need to distance church
and the state on this). imho

That is why it's a good thing that we ordinary citizens are also discussing here the legal implications of the current impeachment proceedings.Â* We may not have the same intellectual caliber than our lawmakers but I guess we can claim more disinterestedness.

Permit me to say that we should be concerned not only with the tactics of the administration, as some people here seem to be obsessed with, but also with the tactics of the opposition, particularly their attempts to precondition the public into thinking that the impeachment will be a farce.Â* From where I'm standing, it is the opposition rather than the administration that is trying to railroad the impeachment proceedings in its haste to oust Arroyo.Â* The administration allies, on the other hand, have brought up some valid issues that the opposition seem to be at a loss to answer.

[s.n.m.p.]

Passion For Reason : Juridical guerrilla warfare

First posted 03:22am (Mla time) Aug 26, 2005
By Raul Pangalangan
Inquirer News Service

THE BEST way to kill the impeachment complaint is to wear out the people. No need to show that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is innocent. Just tire the sovereign people, bore them, make them indifferent to whether or not she is guilty. Reduce Gloriagate from a debate about principles to a wager on technicalities bereft of moral content. That is the peril of the vote by the House of Representatives' justice committee to focus first on "prejudicial questions." To paraphrase Sun Tzu, war is like fire. Rather than putting it out, let it burn itself out.

The Supreme Court has laid down the controlling doctrine. In Francisco v. House of Representatives, the Court cited the one-year bar and threw out a second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario Davide. The anti-Davide forces invoked Rules 16/17 of the impeachment procedure adopted by Congress, which says that "impeachment proceedings [are] deemed initiated" only after the justice committee has acted on the complaint; by that rule, the first complaint couldn't have activated the one-year rule. The Court thus struck down Rules 16/17 as unconstitutional and pegged the triggering moment much earlier: when the complaint is filed and referred to the justice committee.

Citing one of the founding fathers of the 1987 Constitution, the Court said: "Father [Joaquin] Bernas further explains: The 'impeachment proceeding' is not initiated when the complaint is transmitted to the Senate for trial [nor] when the House deliberates on the resolution passed on to it by the Committee. ... Rather, the proceeding is initiated or begins when a verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on Justice for action. This is the initiating step which triggers the series of steps that follow." Pro-Arroyo congressmen now claim that Lozano has tripped the constitutional switch.

But, as Rep. Francis Escudero said at a forum in the University of the Philippines, opposition legislators have anticipated this, and deftly packaged their complaint so that it can either "stand alone" as an independent complaint or merely supplement Lozano's.

There is no technical bar to a supplement. I have heard forced analogies to judicial process, both civil and criminal, all of them inapt to the "sui generis" ("class by itself") nature of impeachment proceedings. The current procedural rules on impeachment are silent on supplements. Therefore, to hinder the other complaints is an exercise of discretion. Our legislators must not wash their hands through technicalities, and be candid enough to confess that they are voting their true selves.

This gap ("lacuna") in the rules beckons us to turn to the "intent of the framers." Note the following exchange in the Constitutional Commission when they drafted the one-year bar.

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."

Hearing the three complaints together will advance this constitutional intent -- no undue "harassment" of the respondent, or additional work for Congress.

But in addition, Rep. Teodoro Locsin shows that there is in fact a proper technical way to construe the three complaints. Congressional time is not normal people's time, he said. Congress can simply stop the clock and by parliamentary fiat freeze time, and the record will not show that they actually debated past midnight. Now by such reckoning, time stood still while Congress was on its constitutionally mandated one-month break. That Lozano filed first in that twilight zone is of no consequence.

Which brings us back to the controlling moment in Francisco, namely, July 25, when Congress re-convened, the "session day" when Speaker Jose de Venecia endorsed the complaints to the justice committee, simultaneously at 11:20 a.m. (recorded in the official Journal). Therefore, Francisco will hold that none of the complaints could have blocked off the others.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That, shorn of fancy lawyer talk, is one big part of the rule of law. The justices read the one-year bar liberally in favor of the "accused." This gave solace to the Chief Justice, who was worthy, but now it purportedly gives safe haven to President Arroyo, who is not. The solution is not to fudge what the Court said in Francisco, but to carry out our compelling intuitions through the disciplined craft of the law, and in Unger's words, "find the mind's opportunity in the heart's revenge." Remember Sun Tzu: Take away the energy of the enemy, take away their heart.

[pandisal]

Here's old article from previous impeachment :

Primer on Impeachment

http://www.philsol.nl/A00b/Erap-Primer-oct00.htm