Ito ang views niya on the Davide Impeachment complaint back then. He thinks na "unconstitutional" ang impeachment complaint laban kay Davide on the malversation of JDF funds because he considered this the "second impeachment complaint" na na-file vs Davide. Kasi his reasoning back then was, once you file a complaint, "initiated" na raw ang impeachment kay davide at bawal nang mag-file ng additional impeachment complaints (Bawal kasi na mag "initiate" ng more than one impeachment proceeding per year eh, ayon sa Constitution.)
One of the oddest bits of reasoning picked up by the Supreme Court to rationalize the point of initiation of an impeachment proceeding as being when the Complaint for Impeachment is filed, comes from Jesuit priest Joaquin Bernas, Cardinal Sin's man on the ConCom. He is quoted by the Court in its ruling today as stating that the transmission of Articles of Impeachment is not the initiation point because it is the end of the House proceeding and the beginning of another, the Senate trial. I can't believe those who support this view. Don't they think PROSECUTING the case of impeachment is a substantial role of the House in the impeachment process, the reason it initiates impeachment? Nay, transmission of the Articles of impeachment is just the start of the House's work on impeachment, that's why it's the real initiation point. Some countries that agree with me: America, England, France, Germany, Spain, shall I go on...sigh...
IRONIES are multiplying now that the shoe is on the other foot. I just got done listening to Jovito Salonga talking to Gene Orejana. Sen. Salonga makes the most disgusting argument for why the people ought to accept his verdict that the "second impeachment complaint" as he calls it, is unconstitutional::he claims that the first three amici curiae to address the Supreme Court this morning all said it is. (Justices Florenz Regalado and Regalado Maambong, and Joaquin Bernas, SJ). It's a fine kettle of stinking fish again
But here's Bernas' opinion now on the GMA case regarding multiple impeachment complaints. He finally got it right this time.
[W]e next look at what the Constitution prohibits. It prohibits the initiation of more than one “impeachment proceeding.” It does not necessarily prohibit more than one complaint. More than one complaint would be prohibited only if the multiple complaints would require more than “one proceeding.” …
In the current controversy, the so-called “amended complaint” and the Lopez complaint, both transmitted on the same day to the Justice Committee together with the Lozano complaint, are nothing more than “bills of particulars” to accompany the Lozano complaint. They both elaborate on the one constitutional offense of “betrayal of public trust.” For constitutional purposes, therefore, what is being initiated is only “one proceeding involving one complaint but with an extended bill of particulars.”
I can understand, however, why the President’s defenders argue the way they do. They must realize that if the “bill of particulars” is elevated to the Senate, the President will be tarred and feathered and be made to squirm. I guess we must bemoan the conclusion that the presidential defenders and their client do not wish to face the music.
Pero sabi nya dati "filing a impeachment complaint" means the impeachment process has been "initiated" na, diba? So when the Oliver Lozano filed his complaint, automatically "initiated" na ang impeachment process?
LMAO! But again, I'm glad he got it right this time, because we need to get the fake president out of Malacanang ASAP.
Maybe Joaquin Bernas like Hilario Davide more than Mrs. Arroyo?