The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the initiating of a second impeachment complaint within one year against Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. is in violation of the Constitution.
That is supposed to put a legal bar to the House’s forwarding to the Senate the Articles of Impeachment being pushed by a third of the chamber, subject to a possible motion for reconsideration that would reopen the question.
In deciding whether to defy or obey the Supreme Court, congressmen – especially the one-third pro-impeachment bloc – must rise above partisanship and consider the wider and higher interests of the people.
It is ill-advised for Congress to dabble in judicial exercises or insist on its own interpretation of the Constitution, especially after the Supreme Court has ruled already on the constitutional issue raised before it.
As we write this, congressmen are still sparring over the minutes of the last session day that was abruptly adjourned. They are not yet into the substantive debate over impeachment and the SC ruling.
But however the House acts, or even if it does not act, such action or inaction had become moot since the Senate, through its president Sen. Franklin Drilon, had announced that it would abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court.
We take it that in the face of the binding Supreme Court ruling, the Senate was not inclined to give due course to the Articles of Impeachment if forwarded to it by the House.
It is also a test of the maturity of the congressmen sent to represent the people in the national legislature.
Poor Speaker Jose de Venecia, who rules by consensus and compromise, is caught in the middle. We sincerely hope he does not fall as he walks gingerly on the tightrope.
De Venecia’s speech before the chamber last night, heavy with pain and a plea for statesmanship, should wake up the juvenile members of the House to their sworn duty as people’s representatives.
The purchase may look normal on the surface, but she bought them from Freeway Motor Sales of Baliwag Corp., that records show is an automotive dealer controlled by the governor’s family.
Per records of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the biggest stockholder of Freeway Motor Sales, holding 2,125 shares, is Jose Mendoza, a brother of the governor, and his wife Violeta Mendoza.
The purchases were reportedly undertaken without public bidding but through negotiated sales.
A coalition of Bulacan-based NGOs headed by human rights lawyer Demetrio Alday, has filed an anti-graft case against de la Cruz and the owners of Freeway Motor Sales before the Office of the Ombudsman.
The NGO coalition calling itself "Bumago Ka" (Bulakeno para sa Mabuting Gobyerno at Kaunlaran) prayed for the suspension of De la Cruz and her brother who is a board member while the P17.9-million transaction is being investigated.
Records obtained by Bumago Ka show the province to be in the red by at least P300 million. The bulk of the debts are borrowings from the Land Bank, to the tune of some P222 million, around P65 million of which is for constructing school buildings.
"Bumago Ka" points out that there is no need to borrow for school construction and other education projects because the province has a Special Education Fund (SEF) amounting to P171 million.
"Bumago Ka" is set to file another suit against the Bulacan governor to force justification of the loans and obtain an accounting of the proceeds.
Her house then was known in Lolomboy as "guard house," because it stood like a guardhouse in the front yard of the house of her father (Jose Mendoza, the major stockholder of Freeway Motor Sales).
As governor, De la Cruz has built what neighbors described as mansions, two of them on either side of her father’s house.
To locate the house, lifestyle operatives of Malacañang just have to ask around in Bocaue where the governor’s "castles" are. That’s how local folk call them.