Presidential allies are resorting to erroneous legal arguments to confuse the people and derail the impeachment process against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo this year. But if the “technical, prejudicial questions” worked last year, it may not work this year.
BY ATTY. NERI JAVIER COLMENARES
COUNSELS FOR THE DEFENSE OF LIBERTIES (CODAL)
Bulatlat.com
Sen. Miriam Santiago’s legal analysis that the impeachment complaints filed recently will be dismissed on the principles of ‘res judicata’ and “double jeopardy” is without legal and constitutional basis.
According to the Supreme Court in Mirpuri vs. CA (GR 114508, 1999) “Res judicata has the following requisites: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) the judgment must be one on the merits; (3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction; and (4) the parties, subject matter and causes of actions must be identical in the two cases.”
It is a well-known principle among lawyers that res judicata only applies if the original case has been dismissed by a court on the merits and the same issues are raised by the same parties in a second complaint. None of these elements are present. Sen. Santiago’s analysis may have been clouded by her pro-GMA sentiments when she missed the fact that the Amended Impeachment complaint was dismissed on a baseless technical and procedural ground last year, and was never tackled on the merits by the Justice Committee. Furthermore, the impeachment complaints contain new issues not raised in the amended complaint last year such as the imposition of Proclamation 1017, Executive Order 464 and the calibrated preemptive response (CPR). The parties in the complaints are also different since the current complaints were filed by citizens-complainants while the amended complaint last year was filed by members of Congress. Clearly res judicata does not apply.
CODAL also finds absurd the claim by Sen. Santiago, a former RTC judge, that the impeachment complaints constitute “double jeopardy” against President Arroyo. The Supreme Court declared in Guerrero vs. CA (GR 107211, 1996) that:
“any legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment (b) before a competent court (c) after arraignment (d) a valid plea having been entered and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused”.
CODAL expresses concern over the twisting of legal arguments by Sen. Santiago since, it is presumed that she, like any lawyer, knows that the doctrine of double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases and not to an impeachment complaint. Her pronouncements may be a prelude to the dismissal of the current impeachment complaints again, on a technicality that has, as in last year, no constitutional or legal basis.
