Voting 26-2, the House Committee on Justice chaired by Rep. Reynaldo Umali (2nd District, Oriental Mindoro) on Wednesday dismissed the impeachment complaint filed against Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Chairman Juan Andres Bautista, after finding it insufficient in form.
The Committee voted against the motion of Rep. Henry Oaminal (2nd District, Misamis Oriental) to declare the impeachment complaint sufficient in form.
"The result of the voting in the insufficiency in form renders this impeachment complaint dismissed," Umali said.
The complaint of betrayal of trust and unexplained wealth was filed by former Rep. Jacinto Paras and lawyer Ferdinand Topacio. It was endorsed by Deputy Speaker Gwendolyn Garcia (3rd District, Cebu), Reps. Harry Roque (Party-list, KABAYAN) and Abraham Tolentino (7th District, Cavite).
Umali said the disposition of the said complaint is similar to the disposition in the impeachment complaint of the Volunteer Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) founding chair Dante Jimenez and Eligio Mallari against Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno.
Umali said of the two complaints versus Sereno, only the complaint filed by Attorney Larry Gadon was found sufficient in form and substance since the allegations therein, while not of Attorney Gadon's knowledge, were culled from authentic records that were appended to the complaint itself," he explained.
He said the second complaint filed by Jimenez and Mallari was dismissed due to a defective verification.
"This verification was found to be defective and was the basis for the dismissal of the said second complaint against Chief Justice Sereno," he said.
The dismissal of the impeachment complaint resulted after majority of the committee members raised their objections to and unanimously disapproved the motion by Roque to admit substitute verification as submitted by the complainants.
Roque said one of the grounds for his motion to substitute the proper verification is that the substitution is not prohibited as there is nothing explicitly provided in the rules which provides that any matter of form cannot be corrected.
Deputy Speaker Fredenil Castro (2nd District, Capiz) who took exception to the representation of Roque said that in Magdalo Rep. Gary Alejano's impeachment case against President Rodrigo Duterte, the committee made is clear that admission of a complaint notwithstanding defect in the verification in the exercise of liberality, would be the last time.
"That caveat or that warning by the committee that for the last time it will entertain impeachment complaint notwithstanding defective in form is itself a clear prohibition that the next time around the committee will no longer entertain any defective impeachment complaint in form," Castro said.
In his opening remarks, Umali explained the impeachment proceeding against President Duterte was deemed sufficient in form.
He said the committee opted to be liberal in finding the complaint sufficient in form notwithstanding the defect in the verification hereof with the fair warning to all that this will be the last time the committee exercises liberality in finding a defective complaint sufficient in form.
"However, the committee opted to declare the same complaint insufficient in substance since the complainant Alejano admitted having no personal knowledge of his allegations, neither were the allegations culled from authentic records as in fact no authentic records were appended to the complaint, thus the committee deemed all of the allegations therein as hearsay," Umali said.
For his part, Rep. Edcel Lagman (1st District, Albay) said he was objecting to the presentation and motion of Roque based on reasons such as:
- The substitute verification has no legal basis in rules of procedures of impeachment cases of the House. There is no specific rule granting any party the right to amend the verification or the complaint for that matter.
- Since the Paras-Topacio complaint has been referred to the committee on Justice of the House, any determination with respect to form must be based on the original verification submitted by the complainants.
- The attempt to make a substitute verification is a clear admission that the original verification is fatally defective.
- The motion to admit substitute verification is not even filed with leave with the House Committee on Justice. In fact, it is addressed to the House of Representatives and the House of Representatives in plenary has not acted on the substitute amendment.
"So legally and technically, the substitute verification is not with this committee," he said.
Lagman said "if we entertain the substitute verification, it is virtually an amendment to the complaint, we will not be observing the one-year rule ban."
He said the committee has already jurisdiction with respect to the referral of the Paras-Topacio complaint and the ban has already started. [PTV News]
No comments:
Post a Comment