The 2nd Impeachment

The plot to force a constituent assembly (Con-ass) to change the Constitution and shift to a parliamentary system of government is no idle talk. The facts speak for themselves.

If you were President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and your term is coming to an end, and you know that when you are out of power, a deluge of cases will be filed against you, what would you do? You can no longer run for reelection; the administration presidential candidate will almost surely lose; strong candidates do not want you to endorse them because, unpopular as you are, your endorsement would be a “kiss of death” to the candidate; so not only would you have no protector in the next administration but the chances are the next president would come from the opposition who has already publicly said that if he succeeds to the presidency, he would prosecute you. In fact, these presidential aspirants who announced their intention to prosecute include the lone administration presidential hopeful, Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro.

Given this situation, what would you do if you were Ms Arroyo? You would try to hang on to power, ’di ba? It’s the desperate thing to do, apart of course from emigrating to a country that has no extradition treaty with the Philippines, like Portugal.

But how do you hang on to power when you can no longer run for reelection as president? Run for another public office, such as for representative of Pampanga province where she will win hands down. And if we have amended the Constitution and shifted to a parliamentary system, she can run for prime minister which she can also win. And even if the push for a parliamentary system does not succeed, she would still be immune from arrest as a member of Congress.

But how do you amend the Charter when the Senate and almost the whole nation is against it? Let the House of Representatives do it through a Con-ass without the senators. Congressmen are more malleable than senators.

Is that allowed by the Constitution? The Supreme Court might allow it. If the House succeeds in convening a Con-ass, the Senate would surely question it before the Court. But by the time the Court needs to come to a decision, Ms Arroyo would have appointed all the sitting justices. Even assuming that not all of them would rule against the Senate, doesn’t that increase the chances of having a majority vote in her favor?

And even if the Court does not vote according to her expectations (or persuasions), it is still worth a try. The repercussions of not trying is too horrible to contemplate.

But is there still time to change the Constitution? Time is running out.

You will be surprised what bulging shopping bags can do to congressmen. They will stay until morning at the session hall to pass a Con-ass resolution if they know there are pots of gold waiting for them at the end of the rainbow.

And if, in spite of all the plotting and manipulations, she still fails, then she can shift to Plan B: flee to another country.

* * *

The House has decided that the impeachment complaint against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez is sufficient in form, but it still has to vote on whether or not it is sufficient in substance. If it is not, then the complaint will be thrown into the wastebasket.

And that is the argument of the brief her lawyers have submitted to the House, a copy of which I got. Under Section 4, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings, “the requirement of substance is met if there is a recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the committee.” But, the ombudsman’s lawyers claim that the impeachment complaint is not accompanied by affidavits and other attachments necessary to give it substance. Let me quote from their brief:

“The complaint is not accompanied by affidavits, in violation of Section 5, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure which states that ‘Together with their pleadings, the parties shall file their affidavits or counter-affidavits, as the case may be, with their documentary evidence.’

“The documents attached to the impeachment complaint do not establish the alleged acts constituting the alleged grounds of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution. They lack probative value….

“It does not state with definiteness how or in what specific manner the ombudsman committed the alleged acts so broadly enumerated. It is replete with sweeping generalizations, conclusions of fact and law, and contains inferences derived from facts that are not found in the impeachment complaint…

“The allegations of the impeachment complaints were not derived from the personal knowledge of the complainants, contrary to their individual statements made under oath in the Verification. The allegations are hearsay, and by established precedents, hearsay evidence has no probative value.

“The complaint contains irrelevant matters, such as the details regarding the ombudsman’s graduation from a law school and taking of the bar examinations.

“The allegations in support of the stated grounds of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution are either conclusions of law or fact derived from speculations.”

I am not a lawyer so I cannot comment on the arguments of the lawyers. What I can say is that the Office of the Ombudsman is too slow, and for a nation wallowing in crime and corruption, the people expect the agency—which was set up precisely to prosecute corruption in public places—to act with dispatch. It is therefore understandable why people are disappointed with Gutierrez and want her impeached.