‘Anti-Corona’ lawyer joins call to stop impeachment proceedings in Senate
MANILA, Philippines—One of the lawyers who believed the appointment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona is invalid has joined the call to stop the impeachment proceedings before the Senate.
In May, 2010, lawyer Alan Paguia wrote a commentary entitled “Chief Justice?” where he said that the appointment of Associate Justice Renato Corona as Chief Justice is invalid.
Paguia said he is not siding with anyone or his position has changed regarding Corona’s appointment.
“What we are fighting for here is the rule of law. What happened in the impeachment before the House and the Senate is not rule of law but ridicule of law,” Paguia told reporters.
“Papapirmahin ng hindi nababasa, ikaw na pinagkakatiwalaan ng taong bayan may mandato sa sambayanan, pipirma ng hindi man lang nagbabasa, iyan po ay hindi tapat sa paglilingkod (You were made to sign even without reading. You whom the people trusted with a mandate. You will sign without reading, that’s being untruthful in public service,” he said.
“Hindi si Chief Justice Corona ang nakataya dito kundi ang buong Korte Suprema. Ang naba-blackmail ng impeachment ay ang 15 mahistrado (It’s not Chief Justice Corona who’s at stake here, it’s the entire Supreme Court. It’s the 15 magistrates who were blackmailed by the impeachment),” Paguia said. He was indefinitely suspended by the Supreme Court in 2003 after he wrote a commentary that the Supreme Court justices violated the constitution when it allowed Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to assume the Presidency. His suspension was lifted only in October last year.
Paguia, together with former Governor and Assemblyman of Misamis Oriental Homobono Adaza, in their 23-page petition, called on the Supreme Court to stop the Senate from proceeding with the impeachment proceedings because the complaint was not verified thus it is “unconstitutional and illegal.”
Petitioners said Under Section 3 (2) of Article 11 of the Constitution, it specifically mentioned that the complaint for impeachment should be verified.
They pointed on the statement issued by House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte that since the House Secretary General has already verified the signature of the 188 lawmakers who signed the impeachment complaint, it can then be transmitted to the Senate.
However, Petitioners pointed out that “the word verification is defined in Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules. It does not mean verification of signatures. It simply means that the only [one] verifying the document must swear under oath before a notary public or an officer duly authorized officer to administer oath, that he has caused the preparation of the document; that he has read and understood the contents thereof; and that the contents thereof are true and correct of his own knowledge or based on authentic documents.”
“Under the third Paragraph of Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules, an unsigned pleading produces no legal effect,” they said.
They also told the high court that Majority leaders of the House of Representatives refused to sign the impeachment complaint because they were not allowed to read and debate on it.
Some of the majority leaders who refused to sign the impeachment complaint include Deputy Speaker Pablo Garcia; Deputy Speaker Jesus Crispin Remulla; Assistant Majority Leader Roman Romulo; appropriation committee chair Joseph Emilio Abaya; committee on appointment members Rodante Marcoleta and Luis Villafuerte; bank and intermediaries committee chair Sergio Apostol; basic education committee chair Salvador Escudero III; Economics Affairs Committee chair Ramon Durano VI; Natural Resources Committee Chair Ramon Matugas, Public order and Security Committee Chair Pablo John Garcia; Defense Committee Chair Rodolfo Biazon; health Committee chair Alfredo Maranon III; information and communications committee chair Sigfrido Tinga; Labor Committee chair Emil Ong; Public Works Committee chair Ronald Cosalan; Constitutional Amendments chair Rufus Rodriguez and Women and Gender Committee Chair Angelica Amante-Matba.
Petitioners noted that Remulla, in a radio interview revealed that no documents were given to the congressmen but were only shown a 9-minute Powerpoint presentation about the complaint and then they were asked to sign it.
They said the Senate, in accepting an unverified impeachment complaint committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Other similar petitioners earlier filed include those filed by lawyer Vladimir Cabigao, whistle-blower Danilo Lihaylihay, Oliver Lozano and former Integrated Bar of the Philippines Vicente Millora.
