In the just concluded impeachment hearing of the House Justice Committee so many strange opinions and weird theories cropped up. Congressmen espousing them look so earnest and serious enough to convince the guileless and gullible public that they are sincere and that they believe in the plausibility of what they are dishing out in front of TV cameras and media reporters and interviewers. After dismissing all but one of the impeachment complaints by regaling us with an absurd and twisted interpretation of the House Rules, our Congressmen from the overwhelming majority now come up with a weirder opinion as they disposed off the same complaint for insufficiency in substance that was earlier found to be sufficient in form.
House rules simply say that a complaint is sufficient in substance where there is a recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the committee. The committee need not look beyond the ultimate facts recited or alleged in the complaint because they are initially assumed as true for purposes of determining whether to dismiss the complaint for lack of substance. So documents supporting these allegations need not be attached as annexes. They are evidentiary in nature that should be presented when the committee determines whether to recommend to the House the impeachment of the President after ruling on the complaint’s sufficiency in substance. Only documents which are the bases of the cause of action or the offense charged known as "actionable documents" are attached as annexes to a complaint. By way of example, the forged document in cases of forgery, or the Promissory Note or other evidence of indebtedness in cases of collection of debt or recovery of sum of money, should be attached to the complaint to make it sufficient in substance. This rule is basic and quite clear. It is therefore somewhat appalling for our "honorable" Congressmen to misapprehend it and tell us with a straight face that the complaint lacks substance for failure to attach documents that are merely evidentiary. They look funny but nobody is laughing because they got away with it and were even rewarded for their antics.
Then in the matter of changing the Charter through the people’s initiative, there is also an alarming tendency to shrug off a case finally decided by no less than the highest court of the land. As early as March 19, 1997, our Supreme Court has already ruled that the system of initiative under Section 2 Article XVII of the Constitution is not self executory; that the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative would "remain entombed in the cold niche of the Constitution" until Congress provides for its implementation; and that R.A. 6735, the supposed implementing law, is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. In fact even the Comelec resolution (2300) prescribing the rules and regulations on the conduct of the initiative have been declared void for being an invalid delegation of legislative power (Santiago vs. Comelec, G.R. 127325, March 19,1997).
This decision is the final determination of the legal question on the system of initiative. But certain groups still insist on using this system and disregard the decision in their obsession to change the form of government from presidential to parliamentary. They believe that the decision is wrong and that the SC will reverse itself if a case of similar nature is brought before it now. They are banking on the sharply divided opinions of the Justices (7 concurring and 6 dissenting with one abstention) who rendered the decision. The problem however is up to now, they have not filed any initiatory petition to trigger another case that may eventually land in the SC. The harsh reality is that they cannot even file the initiatory petition precisely for lack of any law or implementing rules. Instead of going to Congress which they control anyway, for the enactment of an implementing law, they issue press releases informing the public that they have already more than the 12% requirement for the peoples’ initiative with 3% in every district concurring. And the worst part is that they are now calling for a plebiscite based merely on their self-serving claim that they already have the required number of percentage of voters to support a peoples’ initiative.
Finally, in the case of ITF vs. Comelec (G.R. 159139, January 13, 2004) decided more than two years ago, the SC voided the Mega Pacific contract for being in violation of law and jurisprudence. The SC also declared that the computer hardware and software proffered under the said contract for the counting and canvassing of ballots are defective and unacceptable for failure to meet the bid requirements and rules particularly eight critical specifications safeguarding the integrity of the elections. This decision has been reviewed, passed upon anew by the SC and declared with finality to be valid, legal and sound. Now comes however a private lawyer reputed to be an election law expert who has lawyered for no less than the President, belatedly intervening and asking the SC to allow the use by the Comelec in the coming elections, of these defective machines, fruits of a void and illegal contract, on the sole and flimsy ground of practicality. This unprecedented move not only makes a mockery of the rule on finality of judgment. It was also done in apparent disrespect of the SC as he announced and went to the press first to drum up public support. Undoubtedly, by going public first he wants to put added pressure to the SC to abandon its own final decision in utter disregard of the well established legal principle against endless litigations.
These are only three of the many other incidents indicating a dangerous tendency to junk the rule of law in the name of politics. Unless checked they may also eventually undermine one of the main institutions of democracy, the third branch of government headed by the SC which is said to be the weakest, as it has neither an army like the executive or does it hold the power of the purse, like the legislative.