House panel finds Ombudsman impeach case sufficient in form

MANILA, Philippines - The House committee on justice found yesterday that the impeachment complaint filed by former Senate president Jovito Salonga against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez is “sufficient in form.”

Twenty-eight members of the committee headed by Quezon City Rep. Matias Defensor unanimously voted that the complaint was duly verified and has been validly endorsed by mostly opposition lawmakers, in accordance with House rules on impeachment proceedings.

Defensor declared that contrary to the position taken by Parañaque Rep. Roilo Golez, all that his panel needs is the vote of the “absolute majority,” which is 28, or one-half plus one of the 55 regular members, which may include ex-officio members in lieu of those absent.

“My interpretation is that following the (Deputy Speaker Simeon) Datumanong rule which is the most recent rule, the voting should be majority of all the regular members, which is 55 divided by two plus one,” he explained.

Defensor also pointed out that his committee is conducting a special hearing, one that discusses impeachment, and that they are not following the regular House rules that a quorum should be only 20 percent of the total members of the committee.

Golez, a deputy minority leader, wanted the 15 other ex-officio members to be included in the equation, raising the total membership to 70, thereby increasing the absolute majority from 28 to 36, the latter figure being the equivalent of the one-half (of 70) plus one policy.

In yesterday’s hearing, Golez reminded the Defensor panel that since four ex-officio members have voted, the absolute majority should have been 30.5, drawing from the 59 members present, divided by two plus one.

“I believe that the justice committee did not have the required quorum when it voted on sufficiency in form. There were four ex officio members who voted. The committee has 55 regular members, which means the new quorum should be 55 plus four or 59,” he said.

Before the voting, Defensor – who initially did not want Salonga to speak – eventually allowed the former Senate president to make a “brief message,” reiterating that he was not setting a bad precedent and that he was “suspending House rules” for the purpose.

“Without tackling the impeachment complaint, we can listen to the words of wisdom of the eminent legal luminary,” said Defensor. “This will not be taken as a precedent and we suspend the rules for that purpose.”

Under the House rules on impeachment hearings, Reps. Mauricio Domogan of Baguio City and Pedro Romualdo of Camiguin stressed that guests are not allowed to speak, but only members of the committee.

When Salonga was finally allowed to speak, he threatened – by implication – the committee members against violating the rules, because under the 1987 Constitution, they can still seek redress through the judiciary, where cases of grave abuse of discretion of agencies are rectified.

In his message, Salonga reminded lawmakers that Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution guaranteed the right of the judiciary to determine if Congress committed grave abuse of discretion in its deliberations.

“I need not go to the substance of the charges in our impeachment complaint,” he said.

“I just want to say something that I will finish it as soon as possible. It may be unnecessary to stress that under Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution, judicial power includes the power to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government,” Salonga added.

“You happen to be, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, an instrumentality of this government. I hope and pray that it would not be necessary for us to invoke this power of the judicial department,” he said.