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
