Political rot
Pro-administration congressmen were gloating as they hammered the last nail into the coffin of the impeachment process versus Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
They had done their “jobs”. They had used their majority in the Justice Committee to kill the amended Lozano complaint. It was the only substantive complaint filed that would have had a ghost of a chance of going to trial in the Senate.
They then proceeded, with pretended seriousness, to determine sufficiency in form and substance of the Lozano complaint. They finally dismissed the latter with the smugness of men who wield the power of numbers but who fail abjectly to demonstrate any shred of moral integrity nor even a modicum of respect for the rule of law.
The pro-impeachment solons, the protesters calling on GMA’s removal from office by any means possible and those who thought the impeachment process would bring out the truth and make Mrs. Arroyo accountable were stunned by the indecent haste and uncharacteristic efficiency with which the Justice Committee disposed of its work.
It was crass railroading utilizing only the most feeble of rationalizations. According to the Counsels for the Defense of Civil Liberties (CODAL):
“It must be noted that, while the Majority portrayed themselves as strict constitutionalist in dismissing the Amended Complaint they were leniently ‘extra-constitutionalist’ in finding the Lozano complaint properly verified, and therefore sufficient in form, in violation of the requirements of the House Rules and the Constitution. The basis of their decision in finding the Lozano Complaint insufficient in substance, is neither strict nor lenient -- because it simply was not based on any rule or law.”
“Verification is when the author of the pleading or complainant attests that: S/he prepared the complaint, and the contents thereof are ‘true and correct’ of his ‘own personal knowledge’ and based on ‘authentic or official documents/records’. Lozano did not state this in his complaint. Therefore his complaint is not verified.”
“It was, however, difficult for the Justice Committee to dismiss the Lozano Complaint for insufficiency in form. They had just previously dismissed the Amended Complaint because the Lozano complaint was supposedly ‘initiated’ first. Dismissing the Lozano complaint on form insufficiency is tantamount to calling the Amended complaint ‘a second complaint’ to a first complaint that was, in the end, not a complaint at all as required by the Rules.”
“On the other hand, the Committee on Justice found the Lozano complaint insufficient in substance because it charges an offense that was outside the current ‘term’ of President Arroyo (having been committed before her term started on June 30, 2004) and that the Lozano complaint is based on the ‘Garci tapes’ which is inadmissible in evidence.”
“The Justice Committee interpretation…makes it impossible for the President to commit betrayal of public trust through electoral fraud because this can only be committed by any president (or any public official for that matter), before their term -- elections happen before the start of the term of a public official...The Constitution did not contemplate this absurdity, which is tantamount to exempting public officials from impeachment for electoral fraud.”
“The justice committee should…merely judge whether electoral fraud, if true, constitutes an election offense -- without looking into whether the evidence that will back up this allegation is admissible since such is a matter of defense for Pres. Arroyo to raise and for the Senate to decide…”
The pro-Gloria majority in Congress has committed the condemnable act of suppressing the truth and subverting the Constitution they swear by through the use of sheer force of numbers and the deliberately erroneous application of rules and jurisprudence.
Why so? We can only speculate on some key factors. Malacañang and GMA subalterns in Congress succeeded in their tactic of preventing the impeachment proceedings from becoming a venue where damning evidence could initially be brought out and examined under the public’s watchful eye. The reduction of the proceedings to a legalistic debate on procedure rather than on substance wore out the patience and interest of the people until many just tuned off.
BusinessWorld
2-3 Sept. 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home