The common factor in this "zarzuela" was the vulgar manner, or the cheap festive mood during the whole exercise, all devoid of sincerity and seriousness. The apt term is "gara-gara" in Cebuano, skirting on childish "bugal-bugal" that trivializes an otherwise serious matter.
The gala premiere was on June 26 with vociferous leftists, militant NGOs, party-list solons, and a coterie of others, complete with streamers and cacophonous sound bites. On June 27, came the identical complaint of Teofisto Guingona Jr., he of the "trying hard" at oratory as he opens his mouth. The next carbon copy on June 28 of Bishop Iniguez who belabored filing it as member of a leftist NGO and not as a priest, was indorsed by left-leaning Rep. Etta Rosales. What a political marriage of a godly bishop and one who appears of godless ideology. The fourth filed on June 29 is another carbon copy in contents, at the instance of Jejomar Binay's daughter, et al. More are coming starting the 24th of July to coincide with GMA's SONA.
Why serialize complaints like a telenovela? Rep. Escudero justifies this superfluity to reckon with the prohibitive one-year period, to obviate dismissal on mere technicality. If the one-year period started from the filing of the Lozano complaint last year, or its indorsement by a congressman, or its referral to the committee on justice, there's now, he says, a separate complaint to avoid a technicality flaw.
To worsen the redundancy, it's loudly bruited that other similar complaints for serial filing until July 26 are forthcoming. And so, the motivation behind such moves could be the more, the merrier thing... just to dramatize it for impact purposes.
Or, could it just be a case of "panlawgaw" drum-beating to thicken the air with instability, to compensate for the reported dwindling numbers in the Lower House to support the impeachment moves? How true is the assessment that only 26 votes could be mustered out of the minimum 78 required? In its pastoral letter, the CBCP is acting coquettish and indecisive with a renewal call for "search of truth" via impeachment, but also striking it down as an "unproductive exercise" by those who covet to take over power.
Incidentally, Atty. Romulo Makalintal, GMA's private counsel, argues that these serial complaints are also dismissible because the dismissed Lozano complaint is still under review by the Supreme Court on appeal by the opposition, And so, the one-year prohibited period has not yet begun to toll. Assuming arguendo that Makalintal's stand be flawed... Are the grounds or causes of action for impeachment this time around, with qualitative indubitability or probativeness to sustain conviction?
Electoral fraud relying on the "Garci" tapes is inadmissible as evidence. Constitutional violations premised on EO 464 and PP 1017 won't hold water as the Supreme Court didn't rule outright their unconstitutionality per se. Holding GMA liable for "salvaging" and human rights violations of leftists and militants, etc. is a shotgun blast from afar. The "jueteng" payola is an old issue and passé with no admissible proof.
A plausible ground to legitimize the Round 2 impeachment may be the road users tax and fertilizer scams. It is iffy though, depending on whether or not the evidentiary trail could lead to GMA, and not just alleged scams of her subalterns, like Usec Jocjoc Bolante for one, and favored LGU executives. In short, quality of evidence, not quantity of complaints with uniform allegations, is the true measure of indubitability for conviction.
Finally though, what is of ultimate and definitive relevance is whether or not the numbers game in the Lower House can be mustered to support GMA's impeachment this time.