Manila Bulletin

House panel drops impeachmen­t complaint against 7 SC justices

- By BEN R. ROSARIO

The House Committee on Justice junked Tuesday the impeachmen­t complaint filed against Supreme Court Chief Justice Teresita Leonardo De Castro and six other justices, saying that it has found the case to be insufficie­nt in substance.

Voting 23 against and one for, the House panel chaired by Mindoro Oriental Rep. Doy Leachon thumbed down a motion finding sufficienc­y in substance that was aired by Siquijor Rep. Ramon Rocamora, a former Liberal Party congressma­n who has joined the Malacañang-backed PDP-Laban.

Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman,

one of the three complainan­ts, quickly gave notice that a motion for reconsider­ation to the decision will be filed within 10 working days.

However, Leachon said the House panel will already vote on the committee report dismissing the complaint by September 18, thus, making reconsider­ation nearly improbable.

Neverthele­ss, Leachon said the motion for reconsider­ation will be attached to the report.

The 55-man justice committee had previously found the complaint to be sufficient in form.

During Tuesday’s deliberati­on on the basis of a finding of sufficienc­y in substance, majority of the members balked as Reps. Ron Salo (Kabayan Partylist); Vicente Veloso (PDP-Laban, Leyte); Anthony Bravo (Koop-NATTCO); and Alfredo Garbin (Ako Bicol Partylist) took turns in assailing the complaint.

Garbin and Bravo are members of the acknowledg­ed minority group headed by Quezon Rep. Danilo Suarez.

Leachon said the vote determinin­g the case to be insufficie­nt in substance will be presented in a committee report that will be voted upon in the plenary. A two-thirds vote will seal the rejection of the complaint.

Aside from De Castro, also cleared by the justice panel were Associate Justices Lucas Bersamin, Diosdado Peralta, Andres Reyes, Alexander Gesmundo, Noel Tijam, and Francis Jardeleza.

Lagman, together with opposition Reps. Teddy Baguilat (LP, Ifugao) and Gary Alejano (Magdalo Partylist) accused the seven magistrate­s of committing culpable violation of the Constituti­on and betrayal of public trust for issuing a ruling that led to the ouster of Maria Lourdes Sereno as chief justice through a quo warranto case filed by government and private lawyers.

The complainan­ts accused De Castro and four impeachmen­t respondent­s of bias when they rejected calls for inhibition for allegedly supporting the impeachmen­t complaint against Sereno.

Veloso stressed that the respondent­s did not volunteer themselves to stand witness in the Sereno impeachmen­t, pointing out that “they were subpoenaed.”

“They were required to swear under oath that they will tell the truth and that was exactly what happened,” said Veloso, a retired Court of Appeals member.

Salo backed Veloso as he pointed out that “bias must be proven with clear and convincing evidence.”

“Those justices who were present at the impeachmen­t proceeding­s were armed with the requisite imprimatur of the Court En Banc, given that the Members are to testify only on matters within their personal knowledge,” he said.

Salo also attacked the complaints for failing to meet the requiremen­t of substance.

“While the jurisdicti­on of the committee is clearly establishe­d, I have serious doubts whether the facts as recited constitute­d the offense,” the party-list solon stated.

In moving for the finding of sufficienc­y in substance, Rocamora noted that the impeachmen­t respondent­s “clearly testified that they arenot in favor of the chief justice remaining in office.”

“The public heard that,” said Rocamora, referring to the Sereno impeachmen­t proceeding­s that were aired live on television.

In a statement, Lagman chided colleagues who rejected the complaint saying that in doing so, they believed that the SC is “supreme even in its errors.”

With the dismissal of the impeachmen­t complaint, Solicitor General Jose Calida urged opposition lawmakers to move on.

“Will you now turn your ire on the committee members because they did not follow your flawed constituti­onal interpreta­tion?” Calida asked opposition lawmakers. (With a report from Jeffrey G. Damicog)

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines