Category: impeachment

andy agonizes, to resign or not to resign

now that the impeachment process has started rolling in the House despite the majority leader’ objections, and now that his fellow commissioners have publicly asked him to resign or take a leave so he can attend to his troubles with family, SALN, atbp., comelec chief andy bautista has to decide soon, and he says he will, in the next few days.

In a radio interview, Bautista admitted that he has reached a crossroad in his life where [he] is now weighing the interests of his family, the Comelec, democracy, and the 2016 elections.

clearly, family is not the primary consideration or he would have resigned already. so it must be the 2016 elections.  the grapevine has always alleged that it was rigged, that comelec and smartmatic connived to make LP win (mar, leni, the senate slate) except that in mar’s case, duterte was so far ahead, naging imposible nang talunin, which of course puts leni’s win, and our so-called democracy, into question, along with: how many votes did every one get ba talaga?

andy bautista has always denied it: no evidence or proof of cheating daw.  if that is so, then what is it about the comelec and democracy and 2016 that weighs on his mind more heavily than family?

can it be na totoo ang chismis, there was cheating?  which could mean that andy has been hoping that the beneficiaries of the cheating would could move heaven and earth to foil an impeachment attempt dahil sasabit din sila?  and / or maybe andy has been hoping to strike a deal with the duterte admin — leave me be and i will make sure you win the plebiscite on charter change and federalism?  is that too wild a thought?

alas for andy, an impeachment complaint was filed august 23 by former negros oriental rep jacinto paras and lawyer ferdinand topacio.

Apart from alleged misdeclaration in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth, the complainants also cited as ground for the criminal liability of Bautista the hacking of the Comelec website that led to the leakage of voters’ database as found by the National Privacy Commission.

They accused him of culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust in the complaint, which was immediately endorsed by three representatives… Gwen Garcia of Cebu, Abraham Tolentino of Cavite and Harry Roque of Kabayan.

the very next day, august 24, the house of reps’ secretary-general transmitted the complaint to the office of the speaker who has 10 session days to refer it to the rules committee that has three session days to refer it to the justice committee that has sole jurisdiction over impeachment cases.    

majority leader rudy fariñas, however, is being difficult.  puro hearsay lang daw, absent the personal knowledge of the complainants.

Fariñas underscored the importance of the verification portion of an impeachment document, which states that complainants must have evidence of their “own personal knowledge and/or culled from authentic documents”.

also, kailangan daw munang tapusin ng House ang budget deliberations, which he says wlll be around mid-september pa.  hmmm.  back in the time of corona, fariñas was part of a minority that didn’t sign the impeachment complaint.  today, it is said that it is he, not speaker alvarez, who calls the shots in the House.  read manolo quezon’s A Congress of cats

Today, the point person in the House is Majority Leader Rodolfo Fariñas, arguably one of the most powerful holders of that position in living memory. This is because Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, even in his previous stint as a representative, was never a major mover or shaker and, aside from his closeness to President Duterte, lacks a track record of leadership or camaraderie, or a party franchise and independent means to quickly assert personal dominance in the House (in contrast to his predecessors and successors who were active party men before they assumed the speakership, like Manuel Villar Jr. who compensated for his lack of political ties with an immense personal fortune and by taking over the Nacionalista Party franchise).

in the year 2000 it took just 11 days from the chavit exposé that tagged erap as a jueteng lord (oct 7) for the house of reps to file a motion to impeach (oct 18).  in less than a month (nov 13) senate prez manny villar, upon obtaining the minimum one-third (73 of 218) votes, declared erap impeached and ordered the complaint transmitted to the senate without delay.  trial started dec 7 and abruptlly ended jan 17 2001.

in 2011 it took just six days since the PNoy speech (dec 6) savaging chief justice renato corona (seated just two meters away) for being beholden to former prez gma and for his foiled attempt to allow her to leave the country against the new admin’s wishes.  dec 12 iloilo rep niel tupas of the justice committee presented an impeachment complaint that a few hours later was signed by 188 of 284 reps and transmitted at once to the senate.  the trial began jan 16, ended may 29  2012.

in 2017 it’s taken 16 days for tish’s exposé to elicit an impeachment complaint. despite fariñas.  quick enough, considering that so much else is going on.  feels like a confluence of events coming up, and then again maybe not, yet.  the only thing i’m sure of is that we’re being asked to multi-task, to be vigilant on multiple fronts.  it’s a test.

Perfect storm in wild, wild Philippines

Tony La Viña

For our sake, we better understand what is happening and act collectively to avert the worst outcome.

First, there was the filing last Friday of the impeachment complaint against President Duterte by Representative Gary Alejano of the Magdalo party list. The timing was perfect, with Congress having just adjourned, surprising the Duterte administration and its supporters.

Read on…

‘I Told You So’ #cj trial

Teditorial: I Told You So

Can the chief justice be impeached for his interpretation of the law that his accusers completely agree with by not signing their own waivers?

By Teddy Locsin Jr.

I wrote this last night and for the past three weeks, I was predicting on Twitter 18, 19, even 20 will convict. For today was not the day of decision but the day the decision would be announced.

Like a bicameral conference for all the haste of this impeachment, it must have been discussed before it was filed. The decision of the Senate impeachment court making up a law as the trial went along and then convicting for it is the bill of attainder of which Enrile warned.

This was not impeachment as a political process, but a political assassination masquerading as a judicial procedure. An impeachment aspires to judicial procedure, ever mindful of judicial rules, above all respectful of due process that no citizen can be denied however high or low. That is why the senators wore the costumes of judges to look like judges. But this was not a trial but a long execution carried out by the legislature at executive behest.

The grounds for the chief justice’s impeachment were culpable violation of the constitution and betrayal of the public trust. Culpable means blameworthy that excludes unintentional wrong. (I was very good at Latin.) In this case, the act was not even wrong. The BIR says no taxpayer ever declared dollar deposits. Other grounds are treason, bribery, graft and corruption. The grounds differ. But all share a necessary quality. They must all be of equal gravity in being so obviously (note: obviously) wrong as to threaten the order of political society, making it pestilent and perilous for the perpetrator to stay in power.

Of what was the chief justice accused that made him pestilent and his tenure perilous? It is the chief justice’s accusers in the Palace, in the House, in the Senate and in the media who threaten democracy, the rule of law and the order of political society. The very allegations of culpable violation and betrayal of the public trust must already show what they did not in this case: a clear threat to the social order equal to treason.

Enrile made it clear. The chief justice was not charged with ill-gotten wealth, only of failing to declare all of his presumably honestly earned money.

Betrayal of the public trust does not mean “I don’t trust, honey,” like a politician’s wife says when she catches him in bed with someone else.

The constitution has a special definition. Betrayal of public trust is such gross irresponsibility, such brazen lack of integrity, such repeated disloyalty to duty, such heedless inefficiency and laziness in the public service, such glaring injustice and extravagant living as to pose a threat to the good order of society.

No real let alone legal proof showed of any of that. Such proof as the prosecution attempted did not approach the standard of clear and convincing evidence for conviction.

The chief justice was accused of culpable violation of the constitution. But in what regard? How culpable? What was the act or omission and how was it wrong? Can that be wrong which everyone does under a law and only one is accused of it? Signing the waiver acquited the chief justice and put all his accusers on trial.

The chief justice did not conceal his money. It is not concealment when law itself shields the money. The senators lambasted him for that but went along with the TRO. Their secrets had to be shielded but his could not be. They could convict him for hiding what they can keep hiding after all.

Then the chief justice did the unforgivable. He waived the secrecy of his dollar deposits. Now the senators are expected to declare their deposits also. Corona was dead. He was expected to lie down and die alone, not take the senators with him.

In the end, did the chief justice misdeclare all that he owned as public officers are required to report? But the remedy for misdeclaration is self-correction not impeachment as we shall see when a friend of the president is finally caught. Indeed, impeachment is always too grave a remedy. A reckless impeachment undermines the independence of the judiciary as it can weaken the energy of the president.

What the senate did today will decide whether ours shall thenceforth be a government of laws and of separated powers or a government of whimsy and one-gang rule; whether ours shall be a government of limited powers or of powers as far as a president’s ambition will go. Judicial decisions will change with time; political actions will harden with expedient repetion. And this is a government of expediency galore.

It all came down to the question: can the chief justice be impeached for his interpretation of the law that his accusers completely agree with by not signing their own waivers? That is hypocrisy and a violation of the equal protection of the law.

I therefore submit the answer is no. Yet the senate said yes. I told you so. Good night.

convicted #cj trial

so, is it a moment of rare triumph for the forces of good vs evil, as in, maybe, EDSA uno?  i’m sure the president and his supporters would like to believe so, that this is a win for “the people,” good job.

but as in the aftermath of EDSA, i doubt that it means a new beginning.  i would love to be proven wrong, though, by this now very powerful president who, for all intents and purposes, it would seem, has  shown that he has the legislature and soon will have the judiciary under his thumb, so to speak, and without having to declare martial law, because in the name of “the people.” and let’s not forget the media.

now we know: what this president wants, this president gets.

i don’t know that that is anything to celebrate until we see how else he will use the power.

but i will celebrate when this very powerful president gets the legislature to pass the RH and freedom of information bills into law.  i will celebrate when this very powerful president gets the military to produce jonas burgos and general palparan.  i will celebrate if, when, this very powerful president finally gets the economy truly moving, without leaving anyone behind, now that corona the alleged stumbling block is gone.

let’s not settle for less.