The Corona contradiction

By Dean de la Paz / Through the Looking Glass

BY now we should have learned our way around an impeachment complaint. That we remain ignorant is amazing. It is a testament to colossal illiteracy. Despite the patented “get-out-of-jail” card Gloria Arroyo perfected from the several impeachment attempts foisted on her, many have yet to read the relevant constitutional provisions.

In the controversies involving the constitutionality of the Articles of Impeachment (AOI) arrayed against the Chief Justice, there are four relevant paragraphs.

Article XI, Section 1 and 2 declare which officials are accountable and impeachable. Section 3, Paragraphs 2 and 3 describe the impeachment requisites filed by either a member of the House or by any citizen. Both stipulate protocols for a “verified complaint.”

The debate over constitutionality and validation relate directly to these. Distinct from Paragraphs 2 and 3, Section 3, Paragraph 4 deals with either a resolution of impeachment or a verified impeachment complaint filed by at least one-third of the House.

The AOI transmitted to the Senate involve the latter.

The delineation between a “verified impeachment complaint” under Paragraphs 2 and 3 and a one-third membership House “verified impeachment complaint” or “resolution of impeachment” under Paragraph 4 is central to the constitutionality controversy. For the former, verification protocols are spelled out. None are specified for the latter.

Note Paragraph 4’s short, simple and sweet verbiage. “In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”

Under Paragraphs 2 and 3, verification protocols are spelled out and required. Under Paragraph 4, verification is assumed. In fact, in the respondent’s denials and affirmative defenses, “reading” suffices for verification.

There is a reason for the simplification. The filing is accomplished by the House’s one-third membership. In this case, two-thirds was attained. Beyond plurality, two-thirds denotes absolute control. The surplus provides excess comfort. Had the filing been vicarious, those who disagree would have retracted. Under a presumption of regularity, that none backtracked is eloquent testimony of an imprimatur and approval.

Following Paragraphs 2 and 3, if an impeachment complaint is not verified, what is transmitted to the Senate would be void ab initio. Technically, the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over a voided document.

However, the most valid argument for the AOI’s credibility comes from the respondent himself. If certain organizations believe that the AOI are flawed, either in substance or form, then a cursory analysis of the respondent’s denials and defenses shows one similarly wrought with an inherent contradiction.

According to former Ateneo Law Prof. Allan Paguia, by failing to deny the Senate’s jurisdiction, the Chief Justice effectively admits that the Senate has acquired jurisdiction over both the person of the respondent and the nature of the action.

Let’s move that premise forward. The Chief Justice and the AOI are now within the Senate’s jurisdiction. The duality aspect is important. If the Chief Justice believes that the Senate holds an invalid AOI—“the nature of the action”—then why is he responding to the Senate’s demand for a reply?

If the AOI are void ab initio, then it is legally impossible to acquire jurisdiction over a voided AOI. Thus, demands are similarly void.

The Senate becomes a legitimate impeachment court at the instance it acquires a valid impeachment. With a voided AOI, it acquires nothing and thus, cannot convene and act on anything, much less require a reply from respondents.

However, by recognizing the jurisdiction of the Senate and simultaneously responding to each charge over and beyond the jurisdictional question related to validity and voidance, in the constitutionality controversy, the Chief Justice himself effectively provides for the AOI’s credibility.

Despite raising the constitutionality and validity issue in the Chief Justice’s prefatory statement, before the Senate now are, therefore, valid AOI, accepted as legitimate by the Senate and effectively made even more credible by the Chief Justice’s admission of the Senate’s jurisdiction.

An alternative strategy would have been to divide the issues, first tackling validity and constitutionality separately through a preliminary investigation to question each signatory, and only thereafter, tackling each charge in the AOI. Such plays for time, stalls the momentum and returns the burden to the House.

To reiterate, the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over a voided document. That would annul its existence as an impeachment court. Hence, the Chief Justice, in the inherent contradictions within his response where these apply to the constitutional controversy, has, in fact, recognized the Senate as a valid impeachment court, thus clearing a straight and direct path toward the impeachment trial.

Our principal basis for installing Benigno Aquino III is our hunger for justice. It’s time we get this movable feast going. After all, we have crooks to catch.