The House Committee on Justice is getting a lesson in jurisprudence, particularly the bases for the determination of substantive facts in the 4th impeachment complaint against President Gloria Macapagal Aquino.
Arguing for the outnumbered minority, San Juan congressman Ronaldo Zamora is pointing out why at least 80 congressmen should support the complaint and allow a full impeachment trial to take place.
On the side of the embattled regime, it took an 83-year-old solon, staunch and well-favored Arroyo ally, Pablo Garcia of Cebu to assail Arroyo’s accusers with his defense alternately religious and ridiculous.
At yesterday’s hearing, Mr. Garcia likened the accusations against his president to the Cruxifiction claiming that the complainants wanted “to impeach Pres. Arroyo purely on the basis of public opinion surveys and media reports.”
Garcia upped his argument further, asserting that “even if Mrs. Arroyo did actually have lunch with ZTE officials in Shenzhen, “eating Shanghai crabs is not an impeachable offensive.”
Outrageously comedic as the remark is, one is reminded about how Press. Secretary Jesus Dureza intoned the name of the Lord in praying that Mrs. Arroyo “be given the forebearance to continue leading the Philippines until 2010 and even beyond that.”
Congressman Edcel Lagman this morning attempted to bring seriousness back to the administration’s case with a wholesale claim that the impeachment bid has no basis in fact.
As the House Committee on Justice decides the fate of the impeachment complaint, here’s food for thought: the revelation of House Resolution 550 authored by former governor and now Batangas congressman Hermilando Mandanas.
Its substance: the extention until 2011 of the expiring terms of elective officials, including that of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
We all know this is a numbers game.
But beyond the numbers, daunting as they are, will there be enough men and women to muster the needed votes for an impeachment trial to take place, or will the temptation of term textension decide the vote?
Update: Minutes ago, the Committee votedv 42-8 to dismiss the impeachment complaint for supposed “insufficiency of substance.”
Popularity: 1% [?]
impeachment seems like a flawed process. it is unclear what sufficiency in substance means.
naively i would think this means the committee should act like a fiscal, and figure out if there is a case.
but in some articles, i read that sufficiency in substance means a recitation of facts. huh? what is recitation of facts…
the fact its so vague allows the over-politization of the power of impeachment. because no one knows what the heck ‘substance’ is, they can use whatever standard they want, no?
is there a source out there that explains what the different steps of impeachment ought to accomplish?
Impeachment is a political process, Gabby. It’s not really ‘over-politization’ that’s the problem; it’s over-legalization of a primarily political process. All these ‘recitation of facts’ for instance, when in fact all impeachment is trying to determine is whether or not the president should continue serving as such. This is where questions of trust or competence come in. These arent legal questions. Incompetence isnt a crime. Not being trusted isnt a crime. Supposedly, our representatives in congress should represent their constituencies in determining if the president is trustworthy enough or competent enough to continue being president. They voted 48 to 4 against, I heard. That’s supposed to mean that in their determination, the people they represent do not want impeachment and find the president trustworthy and competent.
jeg, you have described, in part, the process of removing a chief executive in a parliamentary form of government. in our current system, legality is part and parcel of the impeachment process. culpable violation of the constitution is a legal question, not a political one. as such, it is determined by objective evidence, not subjective criteria such as perceived “trustworthiness” or “incompetence”. i think “recitation of facts” is simply a statement of circumstances showing that (1) there is a knowing violation of the constitution that has been committed; (2) by the respondent; and (3) he/she is culpable of that violation.
if it were based on the mere perceptions of the impeachment body, all the more you cannot question its verdict, whether or not reasonable.
di ba nakakainis? everyone seems to have a different interpretation for ‘recitation of facts’. Its creates alot of uncertainty, undue emotions, to a process which is bound to be political during the judgement process (coz the judges are politicians). impeachment is also bound to be disruptive to the normal governance of the nation, if only because it puts the leadership of the country in limbo for so long… so it would be great if the process would be a bit less prone to early politization…
sana someone wrote down what these words mean from the start, so these proceedings can continue with as little drama as possible…
jeg, you have described, in part, the process of removing a chief executive in a parliamentary form of government.
True, Manoy. But this doesnt take away the fact that impeachment is a political process. That’s why numbers and not facts are its primary components. Facts dont count as much as numbers.
Dont worry about it Gabby. Impeachment is really subjective. It depends upon the Congressman’s appreciation of facts, perceptions, and his own political survival.
the battle of the great minds…the intelligent ones…the experts in philippine politics…the best analysts in philippine politics…the blah blah blah
nasa atin na ang lahat…kayong lahat dito…ang gagaling ng mga idea ninyo…ang lulupit ng mga arguments ninyo…ang gagaling magdebate…hindi maaruk ang mga pinagsasabi…
pero gaya ng ibang blog sites….ilan taon na ang nakalipas…wala pa din nagbabago sa sitwasyon ng pilipinas…naghihirap pa din ang kababayang pilipino…nagpupuntahan pa din sa ibang bansa para makakuha ng trbaho na my desenteng sweldo…expoited pa din ang mga trabahador…magnanakaw pa din ang nakaupo sa pwesto (admin at opp)..
bakit kaya…puro naman matatalino…puro may sinasabi…
bakit kaya…bakit nga kaya?
puro blog na lang ba? ano ba ang susnod na hakbang? di ba kayo dapat magpulong pulong? ng sa gayon ay mapagsama ninyo ang inyong mga talino para labanan ang kasalukyang sitwasyon? para baguhin ang pamumuhay ng mamayang pilipino? para isaayos ang economiya ng pilipinas?
kaso wala eh…watak watak…walang pagkakaisa…puro magagaling…puro gustong maging leader at walang gustong sumunod…
kawawang pilipinas…ang daming matatalino…at maggaling…sa blogs nga lang…wala sa gawa…bwehehehehehehe
Then why dont we impeach the people who refuse to impeach?
If that fails, why dont we impeach the constitution that makes it difficult to impeach those that refuse to impeach?
And finally, why dont we impeach the voters who voted for those dumbasses who are in our way.
See you at Starbucks :)
Follow-through on avowed reforms and not the betrayals the past, and present leaders have heaped on us. And might I add, our society seems at times to be ‘ungovernable’…. sala sa init, sala sa lamig.
tama ka diyan, ding. sad to say, at the height of marcos’ dictatorship, the entire nation was a bit more manageable, relatively more disciplined, and generally more “peaceful” (except of course for the agitation and restlessness of the dispossessed trapos and oligarchs, who found themselves on the outside looking in, and the ideological militants who were only interested in their own brand of dictatorship and power trip.
“ideological militants who were only interested in their own brand of dictatorship and power trip.”
Here’s where the danger is, Atty. Ben. The danger of a caudillo emerging. But the very same monster may already be upon us in a different form: the Mafia-type way governance is being conducted with the operators bound a omerta.
yeah, ding, but during the dictatorship of marcos, yun lang may atraso kay makoy ang hindi panatag ang buhay. karamihan ay nagsipag alisan at yong hindi makaalis ay namundok. pero para sa ordinaryong mamamayan, tahimik at disiplinado ang tao. kung hindi nga lang sumobra ang pagkagahaman ng mga namumuno (including him and his family), seguro puede na tayong ngayong mikipagsabayan sa ating mga kapit-bansa, i.e., vietnam, singapore, s. korea, china, etc.
sa palagay ko, hindi mangyayari yung mafia-type governance na sinasabi mo hanga’t malaya tayong nakapagsasabi ng ano mang bagay tungkol sa gobierno at lalung-lalo na tungkol kay gma.
remember, myanmar sentenced a comedian to 59 years in prison for criticizing the government. aren’t we lucky in the philippines?
Atty. Ben,
Unanais kong sabihing nalulugod ako ngayong nagpi=Pilipino ka dahil ramdam kong higit na kadugo ka pa rin, kahit pa wala ka rito sa atin at di laging tugma ang pananaw natin.
Hinggil sa tinuran mong “sa palagay ko, hindi mangyayari yung mafia-type governance na sinasabi mo hanga’t malaya tayong nakapagsasabi ng ano mang bagay tungkol sa gobierno at lalung-lalo na tungkol kay gma.”
Medyo taliwas ang lohika ritoi dahil sa kasalukuyan, mala-Mafia na ang oamamalakad, tulad na rin ng bali inamin ni Bolante na sa loob ng DA, SILA ANG NAG-OPERATE AT ANIMO MILAGRO NA PILI NA ANG SUPPLIER NG OVERPRICED AT DILUTED LIQUID FERTILIZER, AT MAGING ANG “DOWNLOADING NG PERA AY AUTOMATIC, AUTOMATIC NA NAKAW. SA PAMAGITAN DIN NG INFAMOUS NA EO 464 AT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE KUNO, MAY OMERTA SILA… DI BA KATANGIAN NGA ITO NG MAFIA, ATTY.?