Impeach rap vs justice found sufficient in form
MANILA, Philippines—Voting 11-10 with one abstention, the House of Representatives’ committee on justice on Wednesday declared the impeachment complaint against Supreme Court Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo sufficient in form.
The vote is considered a preview of next week’s vote on the substance, or merits, of the impeachment complaint, which accuses Del Castillo of betrayal of public trust for plagiarizing from the works of foreign experts in writing a decision on the case of “comfort women” during World War II. (See What Went Before).
The committee chair, Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., said the complaint had met the requirements of the Rules on Impeachment. He said that had there been a tie, he would have voted in favor of the complaint.
Northern Samar Rep. Emil Ong did not state his reason for abstaining from the voting.
During the hearing, Isabela Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao objected to the motion to proceed with the voting, saying the complaint filed by the five women belonging to the group Malaya Lola was defective.
“There is falsehood… in their verification. This would have merited an outright dismissal [of the complaint],” he said.
The Supreme Court had earlier cleared Del Castillo of the plagiarism charge. It said the footnotes containing the acknowledgments of material quoted from various authors had been “accidentally deleted” by Del Castillo’s legal researcher, and that the associate justice had acted without malice.
Forum-shopping
Aggabao said he believed the complainants—Isabelita Vinuya, 79; Maria Quilantang, 80; Maxima dela Cruz, 83; Pilar Galang, 80; and Leonor Sumawang, 80—were engaged in forum-shopping.
According to the lawmaker, the verification procedure requires complainants to certify that no other case on the same issue had commenced at the time an impeachment complaint is filed, and that if there was such a case, they should notify the court.
He said Malaya Lola filed the impeachment complaint in the House in December 2010, at a time when the women also had a pending appeal at the Supreme Court on the dismissal of their case for compensation.
Oriental Mindoro Rep. Amelita Villarosa and Rep. Sherwin Tugna of the party-list group Citizens Battle Against Corruption (Cibac) echoed Aggabao’s view.
Said Tugna: “My fear is if someone does not obtain a favorable judgment from a different agency of goverment, the House might be used to secure a reversal of judgment. That I don’t want to happen.”
Hearing this, an exasperated Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas crumpled the verification sheet of the complaint in protest of Aggabao’s statement.
“Forum-shopping does not apply here,” Fariñas stressed. “It applies only to the Rules of Court. When it comes to impeachment, there’s only one body, and this is the House of Representatives.”
‘We passed the test’
Deputy Speaker and Quezon Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III said the Rules on Impeachment only required the complainant to verify that the one filed was her complaint.
“The need to state the pending case in the Supreme Court is not necessary. As to form, we have passed the test,” Tañada said.
Marikina Rep. Romero Federico Quimbo said only one complainant was in fact needed to verify the complaint in order to pass sufficiency in form.
Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali said 15 lawmakers had also acted as complainants.
They include Umali and Representatives Arlene Bag-ao and Walden Bello (Akbayan), Bernadette Herrera-Dy (Bagong Henerasyon), Jorge Banal Jr. (Quezon City), Vincent Belmonte (Iligan City), Teodoro Baguilat Jr. (Ifugao), JV Ejercito (San Juan), Cesar Sarmiento (Catanduanes), Florencio Flores Jr. (Bukidnon), Irvin Alcala (Quezon), Winston Castelo (Quezon City), Carlo Lopez (Manila), Deogracias Ramos (Sorsogon) and Philip Pichay (Surigao del Sur).
Gray area
In a press conference, House Minority Leader Edcel Lagman said the results of the vote on sufficiency in form indicated the “apprehension or reservation” of some committee members to go along with the flow to impeach an official from the judiciary, a coequal branch of the government.
Lagman said there was a gray area in the complaint because the alleged offense—betrayal of public trust—was very broad.
“There is no complaint from the alleged plagiarized material. And is it material to the decision [of Del Castillo]?” Lagman said, adding he was not sure whether plagiarism would constitute betrayal of public trust.
Tupas said the House had the exclusive power to initially determine what fell under betrayal of public trust for purposes of initiating impeachment proceedings, while the Senate as an impeachment court had the sole power to decide the matter.
SC ruling no bearing
“The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over an impeachable officer, as its members are themselves impeachable officers. Thus, its decision clearing Justice Del Castillo of plagiarism has no bearing on Congress,” Tupas said.
“In fact, it should not have entertained such a complaint, moreover decide on it. It may lead to a mockery of justice,” he said.
For his part, Fariñas said the justice committee and the House as a whole would define or decide on the issue of jurisdiction.
“The dismissal of the ‘Lola’ case by the Supreme Court has no effect on the impeachment case,” he said.
