Crazy Impeachment

The Chief Justice sends a thank you note to supporters. Click here.

With gratitude and profound humility - Nov. 19, 2003

The issue just won't die, would it? In this Tribune article, Tarlac Rep. Jesli Lapus is reported to have formally moved for the conduct of a special audit by a private firm on the JDF. Click article below.
THE DAILY TRIBUNE On the Web!

Now, we have another constitutional issue brewing (not again please!). The Commission on Audit is the exclusive auditor of state funds. SGV or Punonbayan or any other accounting firm may not audit state funds. And even if they are allowed to do so, the COA report is still the final word on the audit of state funds.

Newsbreak gives a good recap of how the other impeachment cases filed with the House of Representatives met their end. Click below.

Newsbreak

Amando Doronila of the Inquirer states that the Supreme Court Decision last November 10, 2003 highlights the Supreme Court's activist role. Click below.

Impeach ruling shows ... - Nov. 17, 2003

Newsbreak takes a look at the Davide impeachment from the angle of protecting Danding Cojuangco's coco levy funds. Click below.

Newsbreak

Today columnist Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., proposes that the provision of the Constitution that allows the impeachment of an impeachable official by the signatures of 1/3 of the members of the House of Representatives should be amended. See link below.

ABS-CBNNEWS.COM

The surprise hero of the impeachment drama, JDV. I never tought it would come to this. But we really got to hand it to the man. See Inquirer ink below.

Take a bow, Jose de Venecia ... - Nov. 16, 2003

To complete the round-up of comments on the Supreme Court Decision of November 10, 2003, Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino, head of the Academic Affairs Office of the Philippine Judicial Academy, Supreme Court of the Philippines, published this commentary in the Inquirer. Click below.

What does the SC ... - Nov. 16, 2003

Justice Isagani Cruz's thoughts on the November 10, SC Decision: Too much too soon. Click below.

The decision doth ... - Nov. 16, 2003

For the first time in since October 25, 2003, the newspapers did not carry banner stories on the impeachment. I guess the press is just about ready to close the books on this Crazy Impeachment. But before we do the same, let's see if we can predict the possible scenarios that we might face after this episode:

1. First Impeachment Complaint may be revived.

The 77 votes registered to transmit the second articles of impeachment to the Senate is more than 1/3 of the House and enough to revive the first impeachment complaint against the justices who were present in EDSA 2. In spite of the Justice Committee of the House voting to dismiss it, the first impeachment complaint is still subject to the vote of the plenary. In other words, once the first impeachment complaint reaches the House plenary, the same 77 votes can be registered and the Senate will have no choice but to proceed to trial on the first impeachment complaint. The other possibility is that the 77 votes can sign and verify the first impeachment complaint which will over turn the House Justice Committee dismissal.

2. Protest actions may continue for the purpose of laying the basis for a military take-over

Spooky, eh?

3. Second Impeachment complaint may be re-filed in June 2004.

This is what people continue to forget. The decision of the Supreme Court striking down the second impeachment complaint is based on a mere technicality. It can be re-filed next year after the lapse of the one year bar rule. So the members of the pro-impeachment bloc who know the rules can still pull the same trick next year, assuming of course that they get re-elected in office.

4. 1987 Constitution may be amended

A lot of people are realizing the "flaws" of the 1987 Constitution with this episode. Topping the agenda on the revision list may be the emasculation of the Supreme Court's power of judicial review. We have an activist Supreme Court because the 1987 Constitution calls for an activist Supreme Court. As we had mentioned before, this is not the first time that Supreme Court appears to have ruled on matters which are beyond its borders. Look back as far as Garcia v BOI petrcochem cases of 1989 and 1990, where the Supreme Court asserted that it can substitute its discretion over that of the Board of Investments in the choice of location for the establishment of a petrochemical plant.

Second on the agenda may be a definition of the word "initiated" in the impeachment provisions of the Constitution. We have to admit that the one year bar rule as interpreted by the Supreme Court is very easy to manipulate. Once the 2004 President-elect for example assumes office, his/her allies may file a bogus impeachment complaint on the first day of every year to effectively deter legitimate impeachment complaints against the president fo the entire period that he/she may be in office.

5. Davide runs for President in 2004 and wins.

Ignore this.

6. Danding Cojuangco loses San Miguel to the coconut farmers.

I can dream, can't I?

7. Rene Saguisag is disbarred

Huwag naman. It's always good to have a Rene Saguisag on the opposite side. It keeps us honest.

Alex Magno, a political columnist of the Philippine Daily Star, writes about how this crazy episode of Philippine history created a hero and statesman in Speaker Joe de Venecia. In all the years that Speaker was in the political limelight I believe this is the first time that I have actually read a published article praising him for his political skills. See the article here.

Over at ABSCBN News channel, I caught the replay of Jing Orejana's Online show where the Speaker indulged Mr. Orejana with an intelligent discussion on politics and the impeachment. The audience sent in more praises for the Speaker.

I have always been skeptical of this politician ever since he became Speaker of the House in 1992 when President Ramos assumed office. Being a De Villa fan, I hated the manner by which Speaker De Venecia out-maneuvered the former Defense Secretary in getting the endorsement of President Ramos for the 1998 presidential elections. Even Erap himself admitted that he would have been more excited about the elections if Pres. Ramos endorsed De Villa instead of De Venecia, who in spite of all the power and money to support him, could not even muster half of Erap's votes.

Well now, I am willing to overlook the 1998 elections if only to say that Speaker De Venecia's political will has done the country some good.

Some 20,000 ( or 2000, depending on your political persuasion) took the streets of Makati yesterday to protest the decision of the Supreme Court and to demand the installatino of a new civilian government. Sadly, the rally was violently dispersed at around 5:30 pm when the rallyists failed to voluntarily disperse at the appointed time of 5:00pm. See Tribune story below.

THE DAILY TRIBUNE On the Web!

See video fom the INQ7 website in the Frontpage box. This will be archived on this page after today.

A few posts back, we had mentioned the curious ad of the October 28 Movement demanding the installation of a new civilian government, which I believe is already bordering on unprotected speech. I think the Government should closely observe these rallyists and at the most appropriate time arrest them for inciting to rebellion or sedition. It is one thing to demand the resignation of the President and the Chief Justice and another to demand the installation of a new civilan government. The the former is a free exercise of the freedom of speech. while the latter is a clear and present danger, as it were, to the national security.

In the coming months, the Davide impeachment will be the center of political debates and rallys. The Anti--Davides will try to recreate the circumstances of EDSA 2 in order to achieve their political ends. My suggestion is to let Bayani Fernando handle these guys so we can have some peace and quiet.

The Tribune reports that hardliners in the pro-impeachment bloc of the House are mulling the filing of charges of "obstruction of legislative functions" against the Speaker for failing to transmit the articles of impeachment after the mandatory one third rule has been obtained. See report below. THE DAILY TRIBUNE On the Web! Fat chance. Not with the Francisco ruling handed down yesterday by the Supreme Court.

Speaker De Venecia's decision to respect the final word of the Supreme Court on this Crazy Impeachment was affirmed by a House vote of 155-77. Don't look now, but Speaker De Venecia has succeeded in convincing the most cynical critics of this country that he is capable of statesmanship with his decision not to transmit the impeachment complaint in deference ot the Supreme Court decision. That includes me, although I kinda think he first counted his votes before he verbalized that decision, just to make sure he doesn't get unseated.

The news reports, however, still carry stories of "pockets of resistance" from the pro-impeachment congressmen, namely Didagen Dilanggalen and Rolex Suplico, who vowed to get the ipeachment complaint transmitted to the Senate one of these days.

As the endgame unfolds, the Commission on Audit has released a new report clearing the Chief Justice of any anomaly in the use of the JDF. See Inquirer report here.

Meanwhile, we can expect the opposition and the pro-impeachment solons to fire the fans of discontent. Kit Tatad, former senator and one time member of the Marcos cabinet, even said that yesterday was the darkest day in our nation's legal history. This prompted the Inquirer to remind him of September 21, 1972, the day martial law was declared by Marcos, during which Kit Tatad played a title role as (dis)information minister.

As for the bloggers, Dean Jorge Bocobo makes very valid concerns on the implications of the decision in his blog. Click here. Especially interesting is his concern that the impeachable officers can prevent their impeachment by asking allies to file bogus impeachment complaints every year to bar others from filing real ones. The Sassy Lawyer also registers her comments on the decision of the Supreme Court. Click here. Look for entries dated November 11 at the Legal Jargon section.

The Supreme Court voted 13-1 in favor of striking down the second impeachment complaint for being unconstitutional. All members of the Court but for Justice Reynato Puno decided that the first impeachment complaint has already been initiated and thus the second complaint may not be filed within one year. Eleven justices were in favor of "taking action now" while three - Associate Justices Puno, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and Josue Bellosillo - voted for "judicial restraint," which would allow the impeachment proceedings to take their natural course.

Full text of the decision can be found here.

Full Inquirer report here.

The Philstar article covering this piece of news summarizes portions of the decision here.

To get the view from the opposite side, click on the Tribune report on the news here.

Speaking through Executice Secretary, the President said she will uphold the Supreme Court decision in this report from the Inquirer.

Speaker de Venecia also declared that the House leadership will uphold the Supreme Court decision. Thereafter, the Congressmen voted on whether to uphold the Speaker's decision. See Inquirer report here.

The following link leads to a copy of the impeachment complaint in pdf format. The link takes you to the Phiippine Center for Investigative Journalism website.

This news article from Today bared the Chief Justice's defense panel. Click here.

The article says the panel will be composed of Leonard De Vera, Antonio Tupaz, former dean of the University of the East College of Law, Constitutional Convention delegate Ricardo Sagmit, former Constitutional commissioner Ruben Agpalo and Froilan Bacungan, former dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law.

Personally, I haven't seen these guys in action. But I know Ruben Agpalo and Froilan Bacungan because they wrote good law textbooks.

For the prosecution, we might be seeing Rene Saguisag. He's the only lawyer doing the media rounds to explain the impeachment complaint from the anti-Davide side. But for a prosecutor, Rene Saguisag is already dangling the terms of the compromise agreement -- i.e. Junior Davide should go, account for the JDF disbursement. Is the sign of weak case? Well, it reminds me of Justice Venicio Escolin's parting words in his characteristic Arreneo twang eight years ago as we left the Ateneo to practice the legal profession.

"Gentlemen, just remember,

If you are weak on the law, pound on the facts.
If you are weak on the facts, pound on the law.
If you are weak on both, pound on the table."

Well, I wonder how many tables Rene Saguisag has pulverized so far.

I caught Rene Saguisag's last five minutes at the World Tonight, ABS CBN News Channel, and he mentioned that the Supreme Court has voted 12-2 shooting down the impeachment. Max Soliven's column at the Philippine Star also mentions this rumor. The Tribune also banners this alleged decision. Rep. Nonoy Andaya told Pinky Webb over at ABS CBN NEWS Channel that they plan to open the motion to transmit the Articles of Impeachment for debate in today's session, probably to consider what the Supreme Court will say.

We are expecting the courts to be empty -- no judges and staff but only litigants, as the controversy comes to a close and the pros and antis demonstrate on the streets. The executive department has said that it will execute the decision of the Supreme Court in recognition of the judiciary's role as sole and final arbiter of legal disputes.

The newspapers are carrying ads, one apparently trying to spook everybody with a plea for a quick resolution of the crisis by the "installation of a new government." The ad mentions an "October 28 Movement" and the support of a list of organizations we have never heard of. I was thinking that this ad is already bordering in unprotected speech. But perhaps it is in anticipation of the reaction of the anti-Davides once the Supreme Court hands down the decision today. It might be intended to spark a call for a new government on the premise that the judical and executive departments of Government are corrupt and have conspired against the legislature. Spooky, isn't it? Although I doubt it if they can find enough people who are willing to die for the members of Congress.

I suppose that if the justices have made their votes yesterday, they would be ready with their opinions for the riso copiers by 9:00 am today. We can expect all the members of the Supreme Court, save for the Chief Justice, to file their own separate opinions on the controversy. Let's hope everybody will be sober enough to accept it, whichever way it goes.

In his column today appearing in the Inquirer, former SC Justice Isagani Cruz predicts that the neophyte and senior justices will vote against the impeachment. Access below.

Tower of Babel - Nov. 09, 2003

It is rather frustrating that he predicts that the members of the Supreme Court will vote on the basis of their personal impressions of and associations with the Chief Justice. Yet surely the esteemed former Supreme Court justice knows that the post Edsa Supreme Court has always been an activist court. Guided by the light of judicial activism as enshrined under the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court will have no choice but to shot down the crazy impeachment complaint.

I was able to catch Pia Hontiveros's Strictly Politics this afternoon (Replay of Tuesday's show) at ABSCBN NEWS CHANNEL, and heard Cong. Gilbert Remulla and Cong. Francis Escudero speak about the case.

Hearing them say that the impeachment is a way for them bring out the truth, blah, blah, gave me the impression that these guys don't have any evidence to present if and when the case goes to trial before the Senate. And indeed the proponents of the impeachment claim that they sprung the impeachment to the plenary from the committee level because the Chief Justice refused to heed their subpoenas to appear before the House Committee. This means that this whole thing is just a fishing expedition? A shame campaign against the Chief? In other words, unlike the Estrada impeachment where the prosecution came with star witnesses galore, the prosecution in this impeachment might not even have a first witness. The people of the Commission on Audit, the people who had first hand access to the books of the JDF, have cleared the Chief. They are in fact sure witnesses for the defense. What is the prosecution going to do?

I have dreadful feeling that when the trial begins (and now I wish it does), the nation will witness a bunch of notaries sent by the House to ask the Senate for postponements because they are not ready with the evidence -- oh, I doubt it if they will ever be. And the nation will realize what kind of buffoons we have in Congress.

This is what this impeachment is about. Click below.

Annual Audit Report on the Judiciary Dev't Fund (CY 2002, 2001 and 2000)

Some interesting points on the Executive Summary of the report:

1. The report notes that the Disbursement Guidelines of the fund are as follows:

The Chief Justice administers and allocates the fund and has the sole exclusive power and duty to approve the authorize disbursements and expenditures of the fund.

The Chief Justice authorizes the release of the COLA monthly. The share is computed by multiplying 80% with the deposits received by the bank during the current month and the balance of the 80% share of the income collected for the prior months. The allowances are distributed in proportion to the basic salaries of the SC and supervised agencies’ personnel. Personnel receiving salary of P7,000.00 and below are granted bigger allowances than those who are receiving salaries of P7,001.00 and above (Annex 4).

While disbursements for acquisition of office equipment and construction/improvement of facilities of the courts are all approved by the Chief Justice.

IMPORTANT: There is no statement in the report that there was a violation of the disbursement guidelines. Normally, if there was a violation of the guidelines, it would have been stated clearly with a recommendation for the prosecution of the culprit.

2. COMPUTATION OF FUND UTILIZATION PERCENTAGES

During the period FY 2000 to FY 2002, the Fund was utilized to pay COLA, Maintenance and Operating Expenses and Acquisition of Properties. Shown in the table below is a Comparative Computation of Fund Utilization Percentages.

2002 COLA Personnel Benefits / Income 960,449,613.78 = 73.07%

2001 COLA Personnel Benefits / Income 1,156,777,508.53 = 75.96%

2000 COLA Personnel Benefits / Income
1,380,098,904.80 = 129.34%

Note, however, that when the other items are added, the amount does not equal 100%. It exceeds in 2000, lacks in 2001 and 2002.

3. The balances of Cash in Bank account of the JDF per books and per bank as of December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000 were not reconciled.

Management did not prepare bank reconciliation statements on a regular basis thus differences were noted in audit. These differences could be attributed to the following factors, to wit:

Interest income amounting to P10,421,351.26 and P5,754,667.67 for FY 2000 and 2002, respectively, were not taken up in the books of accounts as of December 31, 2002. Had these amounts been considered in the books, the difference between the books and the bank balance as of December 31, 2002, could have been narrowed down to P193,882,881.39;

Non-submission on time of the Monthly Report of Collections and Deposits (RCDs) by the 1,377 accountable officers of the lower courts;

outstanding checks (checks issued but not yet presented for payment to the bank);

unrecorded bank charges e.g. cost of checkbooks, charges on out of town checks, etc.;

The interest income for FY 2000 and 2002 were recorded in June 2003.

The audit findings discussed in the preceding paragraphs were disclosed in the FY 2000, 2001 and 2002 Annual Audit Reports.

Management commented that a reconciliation of the book and bank balances is being undertaken and any adjustments will be taken up in the books of accounts.

Management should prepare bank reconciliation statements as of December 31, 2002 in the proper form and to make the necessary adjusting entries to correct the account. Thereafter, management should regularly prepare the bank reconciliation statement on a monthly basis and any adjusting/ correcting entry should be taken up immediately in the books."

ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT: Even if disbursements are made regularly in proportions of 80/20 based on the balance of the fund in the bank at the time of the disbursement, at the end of the year it is not going to be 80/20 because income and expenditures sometimes from previous years do not immediately get booked as they respectively come and go, especially income which comes from remote parts of the country. The JDF is not a cake that can be neatly sliced into 10 so you can give the 8 to the employees. It is not a static fund. It is a fund that contracts and expands like a wriggler through out the year. To approximate the mandate of the law, the Chief Justice simply gets 80% of whatever is in the bank and gives it to the employees. But the reality of accounting is sometimes income and expenditures pop out from anywhere in the 13 regions of the archipelago and catch management at the end of the fiscal year, so the proportions get slightly muddled up. But look at the average for the three years: 92.79%.

My goodness! Are we going to impeach the Chief Justice for this? I don't see any issue about the rule of law. What I see is a bunch of accounting staff buried in excel files, receipts, bank statements and vouchers trying very hard to balance the books but can't keep up because of the sheer volume of work. Isn't this an ordinary sight in any corporation of substance? Why don't we audit the Chairman's expense account in San Miguel Corporation instead? It might be more interesting to find out where he is spending the money of the starving coconut farmers.

Another suggestion: Why don't we just let the trial proceed and let the brat pack conduct the direct? They might as well dress up as clowns. You know, to have a thematic approach to the case. Wimpy can come in as Wimpy. They can even hire a monkey to set up the powerpoint. Gilbert's Harvard profs would really be proud. We'll have real entertainment then.

FEARLESS FORECAST: NO LAWYER IN HIS RIGHT MIND WILL TAKE UP THE PROSECUTION'S CASE IN THE SENATE. In fact, I think this is the real reason why Mario Ongkiko declined to represent the House before the Supreme Court. Didn't I tell you he is the best trial lawyer in this country?

Manila RTC Judge Concepcion Vergara faces charges of physical injuries by a court employee, Cathy Loja, who was allegedly slapped and hit by the lady judge. The lady judge was provoked by comments of the court employee that the judge doesn't care about the plight of the court staff because the judge recently benefitted from a legislated increase in salaries. The news came out a few days ago and the Tribune has a follow-up report below.
THE DAILY TRIBUNE On the Web!

In last night's news, ABS-CBN flashed the result of the random survey on Manila Regional Trial Court employees. The survey showed an overwhelming support for the impeachment of the Chief Justice

In today's Inquirer, a report showed that there are two groups of court employees, one for the impeachment (ACEAP) and the other against the impeachment (Philconcea). ACEAP alleges that Philconcea was organized by the Court Administrator and is thus expected to support te Chief Justice. Full report here.

ACEAP is calling for a mass walkout on Monday to protest the efforts to stop the impeachment. I am appearing before a court in Quezon City for the bail hearings of a client presently in detention. It is the same hearing that was reset a week ago because the Judge refused to conduct hearings. I am really beginning to hate this Crazy Impeachment, it's polarizing the courtroom, pitting the judges against the court employees. Meanwhile, the litigants are waiting for their cases to move, as if the judicial system could go any slower.

Speaking to DZMM Radio, Cong. Francis Escudero of NPC said, they are ready to accept the Supreme Court decision. But on the same breathe he also said that the Supreme Court cannot dictate upon Congress on what to do with the impeachment. Go figure. Click below for the transcript.

ABS-CBNNEWS.COM

Dean Jorge Bocobo has reproduced the text of Senator Pimentel's statement before the Supreme Court in his blog. Click here.

It is a brilliant piece of oratory, one that should be reproduced for our children to remember and study in their schools -- perhaps, even include in their repertoire for the grade six oratorical contests. If this Crazy Impeachment will bring any good, I guess it would be the literature that will come out of it such as Senator Pimentel's speech.
Manolo Quezon's 20 Speeches that Moved a Nation, should have a sequel.

But then again, the signs are all over. The Supreme Court is an activist court. If this were a basketball game, the antis are ahead by two points and the pros have the ball. Pimentel's speech is a last second three point shot. Did he make the shot? We'll find out after this weekend at the sound of the buzzer.

With the termination of the oral arguments on the Petitions to stop the impeachment, how will the Supreme Court vote?

My prediction is this Court has full appreciation of and adherence to the ideology of an activist court. The fallacy of the arguments of the 5 amici curiae who implored that the Court act with restraint is that they advocate the ideology of the co-equal branches of the government -- i.e. that the executive, judiciary and legislative arms of government are co-equal branches of the government.

But the Court has already exhibited its rejection of this ideology many times in the past -- Estrada v. Arroyo, Piatco case, Manila Hotel case, and the Garcia v. BOI petrochem cases in 1989 and 1990. This Court believes that it has all the power and might to review, revise, repeal any act of any instrumentality of government. In other words, the Supreme Court is sure to assert its superiority over the legislature and the executive department as it has always done many times in the past. As the saying goes, "The Supreme Court is always right, especially when it is wrong."

Judicial activism is the Philippines's reaction to our historical experience of "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune." A passive judiciary allowed Marcos to install a constitutional dictatorship. In Javellana v. Executive Secretary (click here for a copy), for example, the 1973 Supreme Court declined to rule whether the 1973 Constitution has been ratified because it was allegedly a political question -- even if the manner by which it was allegedly ratified was outrageous. Marcos had the 1973 Constitution ratified by the country by show of hands which was photographed and presented to the people and the Court as proof of ratification. If this were still the 1973 Court, the five amici curiae who opined that the Supreme Court should back off on the impeachment would have been perfectly right. But this is the 2003 Court operating under the 1987 Constitution. Judicial superiority makes no distinction whether the matter at stake is the recovery of illicit wealth such as the San Miguel shares or the soundness in the procedure of the impeachment of the Chief Justice. The 1987 Constitution gave us a clean break from the past. Javellana v. Executive Secretary is history and a very sad one at that.

The problem now is our politicians in Congress will not be able to accept that.

According to media reports, former UP Law Dean Pacifico Agabin and expressed the view before the Supreme Court today that the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to interpret the meaning of the term "initiate" in the Constitutional provisions on impeachment. Dean Pangalangan presented the same view. See ABSCBN article here.

So the score is 3-5 in favor of the dismissal of the petitions.

Of course, the Court is not expected to decide on the basis of the number of amici curiae in favor or against the impeachment. The members of the Court are expected to use the opinion of the friends of the court in their own personal discernment of what is the law. They are expected to decide in all honesty, taking into account what all the years of legal experience had taught them, and guided only by the spirit of justice.

INQ7 reports that Ka Roger Rosal of the CPP-NPA believes that the Davide's impeachment is GMA's gift to Danding in exchange for support in the presidential elections. Full story here.

That's an interesting angle, but I think it's remote. It's messy deal to make and her political operators would have seen through this the minute it landed on their desks.

Here's a take on Wimpy Fuentebella, one the two complainants in the impeachment complaint, written by Juan L. Mercado of Today. It's loaded with ad hominems but really funny. Access below.

Juan L. Mercado

It looks like there is no easy way out of the crisis. The Tribune reports today that pro-impeachment solons boycotted the House caucus to discuss the "win-win" solution/political covenant endorsed by Malacanang and Speaker de Venecia. Full story below.

Pro-impeach solons boycott JdV caucus

The Coconuts have shown a strength of resolve to bring Davide to trial and, I guess, the way out is really letting the complaint go to the Senate where it can be quashed, dismissed, shredded and burned as soon as the envelope is opened. The House is clearly the battleground of the Coconuts because the NPC solons have the decisive swing vote to take de Venecia out and install a new Speaker. And of course, De Venecia is expected to act ultimately for self-preservation. This point leads me to ask, how come Villar was willing to lose the speakership during the Estrada Impeachment when he acted against the will of the then majority? Well, I guess it's because Villar has set his mind on taking the springboard to national politics. So it was a sacrifice that he was only too willing to take and indeed the voters rewarded him well when they elected him as senator in 2001. But de Venecia, he knows that national elections is not for him. He can only win in Pangasinan. And if he gets demoted from the Speakership, he might as well kiss goodbye his ambition to become prime minister one day.

But the Senate trial is not going to be easy. We will all have to spend the last quarter of the year distracted by what Justice Isagani Cruz described as a "tempest in a teapot" I guess business has not yet felt the economic impact of this Crazy Impeachment,but pretty soon, perhaps around the first quarter of 2004, everyone of us will be struggling to meet the payroll.

Reading from media reports, it appears that Fr. Joaquin Bernas, Former Supreme Court Justice Florenz D. Regalado, and Former Comelec Commissioner Regalado Maambong manifested in their oral agruments today before the Supreme Court the view that the second impeachment complaint signed by the Coconuts are unconstitutional as the first complaint filed earlier can be said to be initiated as it has reached the Committee level in the House of Representatives. All three also say that the Supreme Court can rule on the constitutionality of the second impeachment.

See reports here and here. Dean Jorge Bocobo has a blow by blow commentary on the proceedings in his blog. Click here.

Over at ABSCBNNEWS Channel, Com. Maambong also said the second impeachment complaint is defective because it was verified only by Cong. Teodoro and Fuentebella and the rest merely endorsed it. According to Maambong. the rules state that all those who endorsed should also verify.

Question: Will the fact that these people are former Constitutional Commissioners figure in the decision of the Supreme Court?

Answer: It shouldn't. In an ideal world, the Constitution should have a life of its own apart and different from its framers. But then again, the reality is the justices are people who may be subjective at times. And matters like the background of the amici curiae is one of those subjective factors that can swing the votes to the other side during crunch time.

To complete the round-up, former Senate President Jovito R. Salonga presented an argument expressing the same view as the three former members of the Constitutional Commission as regards to the meaning of the term "initiate", but expressed reservations on whether the matter is ripe for Supreme Court to decide on. He said the Senate has the prerogative to rule on the matter.

TV Patrol reported tonight that former Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza and former Justice of the Supreme Court Hugo Guttierrez presented the opposing view that the second impeachment complaint is not precluded by the first which was dismissed at the committee level. Justice Guttierrez, according to the Inquirer said, "The Supreme Court is the sole and final arbiter of constitutional questions if and when the question falls under its jurisdiction. If the court has no jurisdiction, then it cannot be the arbiter of this question...
I believe that when the Constitution assigns the sole and exclusive power to determine a question to a political department, then the Supreme Court should abstain from also acting on that matter and perhaps reversing or expressing a different view from the body,"

By the looks of it, the amici curiae score so far is 3-3. Three for granting the Petition for prohibition and three against. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear the additional arguments from former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza and UP Law Dean Raul Pangalangan and the former UP Law Dean Pacifico Agabin. Thereafter, Bong Bernas for the petitioners will take the floor and then Senator PImentel and intervenor and eminent election lawyer Romulo Makalintal will follow.

UPDATE:

INQ7 full reports here and here.

The Stop Impeachment Movement takes its advocacy to the web. STOP THE IMPEACHMENT MOVEMENT The site looks really neat. I hope they post all the impeachment materials on the site including a copy of the impeachment complaint and the comments of the counsels in the Supreme Court Petitions. These are things that I am dying to do myself were it not for the fact that I have a day job to attend to.

Victor Agustin of the famous Cocktales column of the Inquirer reports an interesting point on the disbursements of the Judiciary Development Fund. According to him, the Supreme Court finance division has not prepared financial statements on the JDF from 1985 to 1999, a period during which there were other people serving as Chief Justice. Full story below.

The wrong Chief Justice

At 10:00 am today, the Supreme Court will call the cases for the Petitions to prohibit the House of Representatives from proceeding with the impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice.

The primary issue hinges on the meaning of the word "initiate" in the context of the provisions of the Constitution on impeachment of public officers. Does "initiate" refer to the act of filing the complaint before the House or the process of the House accepting the complaint, deliberating upon the same, and transmitting it to the Senate? It is such a small word to rock this nation.

The side issue is who has the power to determine the meaning of the word "initiate"? Is it the House or the Supreme Court?

The Pro-Impeachment guys will insist that the term initiate refers to the process and the Supreme Court has no business interpreting the word "initiate" because the House has the sole prerogative to interpret its own rules on the impeachment.

The Anti-Impeachment groups will argue that the term "initiate" refers to the act of filing the complaint and the Supreme Court has the final say on the interpretation of the Constitution.

Bong Bernas, one of the rising stars in the legal profession, will be the lead counsel for the Petitioners (the Anti-Impeachment guys).

The House will not send a lawyer in keeping with its position that the Supreme Court has no business hearing the petitions.

The Solicitor General, Alfredo Benipayo will appear and argue that the second impeachment complaint is unconstitutional.

Senator Pimentel, whose intervention was allowed by the Court yesterday, will argue mostly on the issue of the prerogative of Congress to determine its rules.

Among the friends of the Court who will appear, three are former members of the Constitutional Commission which drafted the Constitution: Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S. J., former Comelec Commissioner Regalado Maambong, and former Supreme Court Justice Florenz Regalado.

Fr. Bernas has the best law book on the Constitution which he has been updating since the Marcos era. No law student today could ever pass the bar without reading his book.

Former Comelec Commissioner Regalado Maambong is another scholar on political law. The man has a passion for research and we can expect him to bring a truckload of citations for the Court to consider.

Former Supreme Court Justice Florenz D. Regalado has a solid background on remedial and procedural law. We can expect his insights on the dynamics of procedure in the impeachment and the petitions before the court.

Former UP Law School Dean and Erap lawyer, Pacifico Agabin, will also appear. Dean Agabin is considered as another expert in constitutional law. I have with me a copy of his great book "Unconstitutional Essays" which I have savored for years. His strength is his ability to relate the law to relevant sociological and philosopical precepts. From a re-reading of his book, I think he will argue for the Supreme Court's authority to ultimately interpret the Constitution. UPDATE: I was wrong. Dean Agabin said judicial review may only be exercised if there was grave abuse of discretion which is wanting in this case.


Atty. Estelito Mendoza, hands down the best lawyer in this country today, can be expected to mirror the position of the NPC Congressmen who signed the petition.

Former Senator Jovito R. Salonga is going to be the sage voice in these proceedings. The man has a law degree from Harvard and and another from Yale and fifty years in the public service.

Former Justice Hugo Gutierrez, Jr. and UP Law Dean Raul Pangalangan will also appear.

The speakers will be allotted fifteen minutes each although I doubt it very much if that will be enough.

It's a big day for this country. I hope they broadcast the hearing on cable so I can tape it. Too bad, I'll be loaded with meetings the whole day.

Congressman Joey Salceda of Albay informed ABS-CBN News early evening yesterday that he decided to withdraw from the impeachment drive against the Chief Justice. Asked why, he said. "My colleagues wanted to burn the house just to catch the rat. We should not burn the house because it is the only house we have."

Full story here.

The Inquirer reports that the President has presented a draft political covenant that appears to be acceptable to the leaders of Congress. Unfortunately, the details and structure of the settlement were not disclosed.
Full story here.

But over at ABS-CBN, NPC solons expressed that they are not going to join the House caucus called by Speaker De Venecia to consider the draft political covenant. Full story here.

E-Lagda.com. the website that sought to raise PHP 1 Million signatures against Erap in the impeachment trial in 2000, is back. This time it aims to raise signatures to stop the impeachment against the Chief Justice. The site can be found here.

This is a welcome development. But then again, as I mentioned earlier, let's raise the stakes. Let's go: TAKE BACK SAN MIGUEL FROM THE BOSS. ALL WE NEED IS THE VOTE OF THE GOVERNMENT NOMINEES IN THE SAN MIGUEL BOARD. IT MIGHT BE EASIER THAN WE THINK.

Has the Chief Justice resolved to play the political wild card? In Inquirer's breaking news today, the Chief Justice is reported to have promised to court employees all over the country to increase the share of the court staff in the allowances from the JDF. Obviously, by doing this, the Chief Justice expects that the ranks of the pro-impeachment groups (the base of which is really composed of court employees) will be decimated. At the very least, I think this will result in the reduction of the open support made by the oourt staff in favor of the impeachment. Of course, the Chief Justice disclaims that it is an attempt at buying support. But who is he kidding? Full story below.

Davide promises bigger JDF ... - Nov. 04, 2003

I am looking at the morning papers and am quite amused to see Fr. Robert Reyes, the running priest, back in action together with other convenors of the Stop Davide Impeachment Movement. A familiar face to me is lawyer Camilo "Bong" Montesa who earlier this year formed Libertas together with Chito Gascon, now an Undesecretary at the Department of Education. Bong is one of the student leaders of the democratic socialists during the late 1980's at the Ateneo. After college, he became a Jesuit seminarian. After leaving the seminary, he went to law school and was quite fascinated with corporate law. At the Ateneo School of Law, I thought he has forever given up the activist life when he mentioned one day over bottles of coke that indeed we have to fight for the oppressed and the like but "somebody has to mind the store." He went on to become a prized associate of Carpio Villaraza and Cruz. But sooner than expected, he left the Firm and began teaching at the Ateneo Law School while maintaining a solo practice. Now, seeing him on the front pages of the Inquirer and Philippine Star gives me an assurance that the activist in him is back. Of course, now that he is back on the streets, I'm wondering who's "minding the store."

I have nothing against these guys, but I think, the alliance should have a long term goal, aside from this impeachment. A long term goal is something like -- RECOVERING THE SAN MIGUEL SHARES FROM THE KING OF THE COCONUTS. The San Miguel Corporation is a cash cow. So long as the Boss controls it, he can bankroll any politician and impeach anybody who goes against his wishes.

To give you an idea why this is so, I recall a little story when a leading law office today was formed.
After a Marcos minister lost in the Batasan elections, he put up the law office, together with a late senator, a seasoned litigator and top notch investment bank lawyer. The first retainer is of course San Miguel which Danding controlled. The story goes that when the Marcos minister mentioned the creation of the Firm to the Boss, the Boss said, "Manong J____, pwede na ba yung PHP 300,000 a month na retainer?" This is the mid-80's. We're talking about the time when the peso was just PHP 14 to a dollar. Nowadays, a PHP 300,000 a month retainer from a single account is still big and its PHP55 to a dollar. Thus, it can be readily said that the Boss can bank roll not just a law firm but an entire group of politicians who will tow the line when the Boss calls. And a bulk of the cash comes from the San Miguel portfolio. We have just to get those shares back and give them back to the coconut farmers who are barely eating with the measly PHP 1 per ton price of copra. The PCGG is almost there. We just need to keep the pressure on. So I propose that this Anti-Impeachment group looks forward and raise the stakes a little bit higher. It's a tough goal, but it's doable. Maybe we can start by asking the Government nominees in the San Miguel Board to install a new Chairman. You can count these directors with your fingers. It might be easier than we think.

Meanwhile, I am likewise amused by the picture of elderly women in clenched fists and impeach Davide headbands. The picture was carried in the Inquirer and Tribune front pages. The Philipine Star carried the picture of kids with the same headbands. My quick impulse is to ask, who paid for the headbands? They look like custom-made. Can you smell the "hakot" crowd? Where did these people come from? Why all of a sudden they are so interested about the Judiciary Development Fund? I can only think of a thousand peso reason. A thousand peso reason that smells like coconuts. But that's just me.

The House filed its Comment on the Petitions against the Supreme Court. As expected, it claimed that the Court has no jurisdiction over the impeachment because it is a political proceeding. Full story below.
SC has no jurisdiction, ... - Nov. 03, 2003

The Inquirer also reports that Senator Pimentel filed a Motion to Intervene in the Supreme Court petitions against the impeachment and manifested that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the impeachment.

Full story here.

The battle lines are being drawn. This motion from the good senator is expected from him. The big question, however, is what if the Supreme Court rules that it has the jurisdiction over the matter? Can we expect Senator Pimentel to accept a decision adverse to his position? It is going to be very very difficult for statesmen like Senator Pimentel to accept such a defeat. But it will be a defining moment for the man who is the best president we never had.

UPDATE: The Supreme Court allowed Senator Pimentel's appearance in the hearing on November 5, 2003 in a resolution issued November 4, 2003.

The Inquirer reports that Mario Ongkiko backed out as head of the House legal team today. Full story here.

Too bad, it would have been a hell of a show. The Supreme Court hearing on November 5, 2003 is a historic event. It's a dream case whichever side a lawyer may be in. I wouldn't have missed it for the world. But Mr. Ongkiko may have his reasons.

UPDATE:

Over ABSCBNNEWS Channel, Ongkiko says he declined the appointment because he doesn't want to contribute to the crisis. He believes the solution to the problem should be a political compromise.

The Inquirer reports that 10 more signatures from Lakas partymembers will be withdrawn. Sec. Sonny Alvarez said this will bring down the number of signatures to 78. The report quotes Alvarez as follows:

"Alvarez added some of the endorsers of the complaint had not read the impeachment charges in full.

'Sa dami ng trabaho diyan minsan nakikisama ka sa katabi mo (Because of the workload, you sometimes just go with what the congressman beside you says),' Alvarez said. "

Full story below.

10 Lakas solons to drop ... - Nov. 03, 2003

The pronouncement drew reactions from solons and the Philstar reports that the solons told Alvarez to shut up in this report.

Philstar quotes Congressman Syjuco as follows:

"Syjuco said they signed the complaint 'only after a long process of discernment with only the facts and their conscience as guide.'"

Volunteer techies have set up a website to support the Chief Justice. See link below:

Rallying behind the Chief Justice

Some graphics failed to load. But the page has the list of coconuts updated with a report on who has so far withdrawn their signatures.

It also lists down the San Miguel products that they pray be boycotted. Of course, I'm having second thoughts with the Pale Pilsen.

Inquirer online columnist, William Esposo asks why is NPC and Cojuangco bringing us all to the brink? Mr. Esposo eliminates all the possible reasons and leaves the question hanging. But it sent me a chill down the spine. Full article below.

Why the Davide impeachment madness? - Nov. 03, 2003

The Inquirer reports that the Alliance of Court Employees Associations of the Philippines, Inc. (ACEAP) has denied that they have a hand in the impeachment of Davide and that they have taken the side of the Coconuts. Full story below.

Court employees to solons: 'Stop using us vs Davide' - Nov. 02, 2003

This is a very interesting point because as I had reported earlier, court employees of Quezon City were not amused by my black band last Monday and have in fact told me openly that they want Davide impeached. On Thursday, the same thing happened to me in a court in Mandaluyong. So either this ACEAP leader is lying or he is not in touch with his members.

Professor Florin T. Hilbay from the UP College of Law posits that however the House of Representatives resolve the issue of when an impeachment is "initiated", the remedy of certiorari on the pre-text of grave abuse of discretion may not be applied by the Supreme Court to reverse the House. Indeed, the "grave abuse of discretion" doctrine requires more than an error but outright arbitrariness in the performance of function. The professor presents a learned and fresh approach to the issue and at the end of the essay the professor makes a very interesting suggestion to the Senate on how to resolve the impasse. The full essay is found below.

the bangus of a doubt: Impeachment 2.0

The Sassy Lawyer posted this in her blog too.

Using this constituional crisis to fan coup rumors is really despicable. It is absolutely pointless to freak out everybody but the government keeps on going. See report from the Tribune below.
GMA fans coup fears, orders monitor of troops

Davide does the same thing according to this report from the Inquirer.

Then, we get a statement from the generals airing their support to Davide. See report here. So what will these generals do if the Senate convicts Davide? The scenario is more frightening than any Halloween picture I've seen.

Of course. we expect Erap to naturally be with King Crony and the Coconuts. In this report from the Tribune, he calls Davide a judicial terrorist. Full story below.
Estrada: Chief Justice a judicial terrorist

But Erap is much more intelligent than most people think. People are also not noticing that he's getting more concessions lately -- i.e., a two-day visit with the Mom, a week stay in a luxury hospital/hotel, a resthouse in Tanay. Rizal, and soon a trip abroad. The civil society guys can't say a thing because they're too busy defending Davide on the streets. Believe me, Erap has a good sense of timing. Either that. or some Sun Tzu strategist has this whole thing figured out with detailed plans.