The nation have seen in the past few weeks the different emotions and events that occurred in the House of Representatives. I would like first to put it on record that although I support the amended impeachment complaint of the minority, I don’t think that the walkout of the opposition is a right move. (But we really can’t blame them for that)
As of the last two weeks of the justice committee hearing, there had been four major decisions made… all of them went in favor of the administration congressmen.
The first is the vote whether to consider first the prejudicial questions given by administration congressman Edsel Lagman, or to determine the sufficiency in form and substance of the three complaints. I believe that the prejudicial questions raised by Lagman were to delay the determination of the form and substance of the three complaints. But why did the minority wanted to discuss the determination of form and substance? And why did Lagman insist to discuss the prejudicial questions first? The motives are obvious. If the majority allowed the opposition to go to the determination of form and substance, they know fully, that the Lozano and the Lopez complaint will fail and the amended impeachment complaint will remain. (The amended complaint is the one filed by the opposition and endorsed by 41 solons when it was first referred to the committee on justice… it was also the same complaint that the administration wanted to kill! ASAP) To avoid such, Lagman laid the prejudicial questions, in the end the administration won and the House went first to answer the prejudicial questions.
Originally, Lagman laid seven prejudicial questions but the committee on justice decided to reduce it into two. The questions were: Should the amended impeachment complaint be treated as a separate complaint from the original Lozano comlapint? & Does the Lozano complaint barred the filling of the amended impeachment complain and the Lopez complaint? The congressmen from both sides stated their stand on the matter and it would be tiring if I would discuss it all here. XD But their points were clear, the majority said that the constitution only allows one impeachment complaint in one year. The point of the minority and also the point stated by constitutionalist fr.Joaquin Bernas in his column in the PDI, says that the constitution allows only one impeachment proceedings in one year. The minority points out that a “proceeding” is far different from a “complaint” But as all of us have seen, the minority was outvoted. The votes said that the Lozano complaint should be treated as a separate complaint among the other complaints and the second voting also said that the Lozano complaint had already barred the filing of the other complaints.
The motive of the administration congressmen is very clear at this point. They wanted to treat the Lozano complaint apart from the amended complaint and to determine the form and substance of only the Lozano complaint. As of this point they carried the Lozano complaint to determine if it is sufficient in form and in substance, and that was the last question in which the (majority) congressmen voted. The final result, it was dismissed because of its insufficiency in substance. At the end of the day, the amended complaint that is obviously sufficient in form and substance was dismissed not due to merits but due to technicality. What a very nice screenplay! Approving a complaint and eventually dismissing it at the end. Now tell me, is this why GMA asked the minority to bring their complaints to congress? Is this what she is talking about as the proper forum where she will answer all the questions about her legitimacy as president? With the dismissal due to technicalities, does that clear her name from all these political controversies? Does that clear the doubts in the minds of the people that she really cheated in the elections? Tell me, what do you think?
(the only hope now is the magic 79)