Report junking impeach cases vs SC justices 'void' — Lagman | Inquirer News

Report junking impeach cases vs SC justices ‘void’ — Lagman

/ 03:36 PM September 25, 2018

The approval of the committee report junking the impeachment complaints against the seven Supreme Court (SC) justices who voted to oust Maria Lourdes Sereno as chief justice was “void ab initio,” one of the complainants said Tuesday.

“There is no report because it was not approved by the absolute majority. In the language of the solicitor (general), it was void ab initio (void from the beginning),” Albay 1st District Rep. Edcel Lagman told reporters in a briefing.

The House justice panel approved the committee report with a vote of 22-0 earlier in the day.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: House justice panel dismisses impeach raps vs 7 SC justices

FEATURED STORIES

But Lagman said under the House impeachment rules, any motion to approve a committee report “should be approved by an absolute majority of all members of the committee” and not just the majority of those present. The justice committee has 68 members — 34 regular  and 34 ex-officio members.

“Twenty-two votes is not the absolute majority because the absolute majority of 68 is 35,” he explained,  referring to Sections 4 and 8 of the House impeachment rules.

Article continues after this advertisement

The opposition lawmaker said they would write to the committee to challenge the validity of the committee report and block its transmission to the plenary.

Article continues after this advertisement

“We will challenge the validity of the resolution because it did not comply with the rules,” Lagman said.

“What is the effect of this? The impeachment complaints are reinstated and are valid,” he added. /ee

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS: committee report, Edcel Lagman, Supreme Court

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.