Belmonte refuses to back impeachment of SC justices
House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines — Speaker Feliciano Belmonte is against a lawmaker’s plan to impeach several Supreme Court justices for their recent rulings that took away Congress’ pork barrel by declaring it unconstitutional, and disqualified a Marinduque representative as a candidate in the 2013 election.
Belmonte said Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, a fellow member of the Liberal Party, could expect no support from him with regard to his plan to initiate complaints against the magistrates for their alleged “despotism” and for overstepping the bounds of their power.
“If he does that, he will have to do it in his personal capacity,” Belmonte told reporters when sought for comment on Umali’s plan.
Belmonte noted that he had been a “key player” in several impeachment cases, but this time, he did not think there was a reason to try to unseat the justices.
“To be very frank, I’m against the filing of impeachment cases against any justices, however much we may disagree, however much we are affected by their decisions, the fact of the matter is, it still doesn’t qualify as one of those grounds for impeachment,” he said.
The Speaker had led the House during the impeachment of then Chief Justice Renato Corona and then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez. He had also been a lead prosecutor in the impeachment trial of then President Joseph Estrada.
But Belmonte also believes that Umali’s plan should not be construed as a way of controlling the Supreme Court.
“It’s just one guy out of 290 talking. It doesn’t amount to a threat of any kind,” he said.
United Nationalist Alliance secretary general Toby Tiangco earlier said the impeachment threat was intended to sway the justices into ruling in favor of the administration’s Disbursement Acceleration Program, a mechanism for impounding savings and using these for crucial projects.
But on Monday, Tiangco also said he believed the Supreme Court would not allow itself to be pressured by such threats. He also said the tribunal should not postpone oral arguments on the DAP, as suggested by certain parties.
Umali earlier said he was trying to gather the support of 99 colleagues, or about one-third of House members, to ensure that his impeachment complaint would be transmitted to the Senate.
He expressed confidence getting the support of many lawmakers angry with the Supreme Court for ruling against the pork barrel, formally known as the priority development assistance fund.
He claimed that the high court had flipped-flop on at least two decisions.
Before declaring the PDAF unconstitutional, the court had upheld the same in a case decided not too long ago. He also said the court usurped the executive’s powers when it further ordered the prosecution of those involved in pork barrel misuse.
He also found fault with the court’s ruling upholding the disqualification of Regina Reyes as Marinduque representative. According to him, the high court, in previous decisions, has ruled that after a candidate’s proclamation, the electoral tribunal, not the Comelec, has jurisdiction over disputes relating to the candidate’s election and qualification.
The high court recognized the HRET’s jurisdiction in a largely similar case involving Quezon Rep. Angelina Tan. And yet it ruled differently in Reyes’ case, he said.
Related stories
SC declares PDAF unconstitutional
Biazon: I’m willing and ready to face raps on pork scam
Biazon admits pork system weak and easily abused
Palace not surprised by charges vs Biazon
Aquino summons Biazon: Explain
Napoles can invoke right vs self-incrimination–Guingona
