|
Bu-lat-lat (boo-lat-lat) verb: to
search, probe, investigate, inquire; to unearth facts
Vol. V, Special Issue
August 31, 2005 Quezon City, Philippines |
|
HOME
ARCHIVE
CONTACT
RESOURCES
ABOUT BULATLAT
www.bulatlat.com
www.bulatlat.net
www.bulatlat.org
|
READER FEEDBACK
(We encourage readers to dialogue with us.
Email us
your letters complaints, corrections, clarifications, etc.)
|
|
|
DEMOCRATIC SPACE
(Email
us
your letters statements, press releases, manifestos,
etc.) |
|
|
For turning the screws on hot issues, Bulatlat has been awarded
the Golden Tornillo Award.
Iskandalo Cafe
|
|
Copyright 2004 Bulatlat bulatlat@gmail.com |
|
|
|
|
CODAL Analysis: Consequence of the Dismissal of the Amended Complaint
I. THE CONSTITUTION
DESCRIBES THE COMPLAINT THAT MAY BE FILED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AS “VERIFIED”:
…A verified[1]
complaint may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by
any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof, which
shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and
referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter. The
Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall
submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such
referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall
be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from
receipt thereof… [1987 CONSTITUTION, Art. XI, § 3 (2)]
…In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by
at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall
constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall
forthwith proceed… [1987 CONSTITUTION Art. XI, § 3(4)]
II. RULE II SECTION 2 OF THE HOUSE RULES ON IMPEACHMENT REQUIRES THAT FOR
AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS TO BE “INITIATED” THE COMPLAINT MUST BE
VERIFIED.
Section 2. Mode of Initiating Impeachment. - Impeachment shall be
initiated by the filing and subsequent referral to the Committee on
Justice of:
(a) a verified complaint for impeachment filed by any Member of the House
of Representatives or;
(b) a verified complaint filed by any citizen upon a resolution of
endorsement by any Member thereof; or
(c) a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by at least
one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the House.
III. THE LOZANO AND LOPEZ COMPLAINTS WERE NOT VERIFIED THEREFORE THESE
COULD NOT HAVE INITIATED THE CURRENT IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
The Lozano complaint was filed on 30 June 2005. It was not verified. The
Lopez complaint was filed on 4 July 2005. It was also not verified. Since
both complaints were not verified, in violation of both the Constitution
and the Rules of the House, then it is as if no ‘verified’ complaint has
been filed.
The Amended Complaint, verified by Lozano and the other co-complainants
was filed on 25 July 2005. Since no
complaints have been filed previous to the filing of the Amended
Complaint, there is therefore no impeachment complaint before
July 25, 2005. The Amended Complaint cured
the defect of the Lozano Complaint and triggered the current impeachment
proceedings.
IV. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AS A “SECOND
COMPLAINT” SINCE THERE WAS NO “FIRST COMPLAINT” THE LOZANO AND THE LOPEZ
COMPLAINTS NOT HAVING BEEN VERIFIED A JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT NECESSARY
TO TRIGGER THE INITIATION OF AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
The move of the Majority to dismiss the Amended Complaint because it is a
‘second complaint’ is therefore without any constitutional or legal basis
since no ‘verified’ complaint has been filed previous to it. How can the
Amended Complaint be a second complaint when there was no first complaint
to initiate the proceedings in the first place?
V. DISMISSING THE AMENDED COMPLAINT RENDERS THE LOZANO COMPLAINT FATALLY
DEFECTIVE AND COMPLETELY KILLS THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS
If the Amended Complaint which cured the defect in the original Lozano
complaint is dismissed, the Lozano complaint becomes fatally defective.
Congress cannot allow Lozano to amend and verify his complaint, as the
current Rules of Impeachment does not allow it. Even if Lozano was allowed
to subsequently amend his complaint, it becomes a second complaint—having
been verified and filed subsequent to the Amended Complaint.
THE DISMISSAL OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS THEREFORE NOTHING MORE THAN A
PLOY TO KILL THE ENTIRE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.
Today we are burning an effigy of the “Violations of the Rule of Law” to
symbolize our disgust at the transgressions committed by Pres. Arroyo
through her allies in Congress, of the rule of law which she so strictly
enforces on us. Everything we learned from our law books are useless in
the face of such a blatant disregard for Constitution and our laws.
Now that the impeachment proceedings is about be killed, CODAL reiterates
its position that Pres. Gloria Arroyo must step down or face the peoples’
direct assertion of their constitutional right to choose their leaders
through people power.
[1] RULES OF PROCEDURE, RULE II, § 2. A verification, according to
case law, is “intended to assure that the allegations in the pleading have
been prepared in good faith or are true and correct, not mere
speculations…” See Robern Dev't. Corp. v. Quitain, 315 SCRA 150, 159
(1999).
Atty. Neri J. Colmenares
Convenor and Spokesperson
CODAL
BACK TO
TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2004 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided
its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.
|
|
|
|