DOES the filing of a complaint for impeachment bar the House from receiving other impeachment complaints? A cursory reading of the Constitution would seem to so indicate. But a more careful reading would yield a different conclusion.
The Constitution provides in Section 3 (5): No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.
Who may initiate the proceedings? Only the House of Representatives, as is provided as follows: Section 3. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
Now it says, the House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate. This presumes an act of the House of Representatives as a collegial body. When is that act performed? That act is performed when the Articles of Impeachment are filed before the Senate, because that is the only time that the House acts as one body. A complaint filed by a citizen or even a member is not one initiated by the House.
Note that the prohibition is on the House, when it files the Articles of Impeachment with the Senate sitting as the impeachment tribunal. There is no prohibition on citizens who plead before the House to file complaints against a president.
Note further, that the prohibition is on "proceedings" – that there be no more than one within a year.
"Proceeding" ‘is a word much used to express the business done in courts.’ [1] "It is any procedural means for seeking redress from a tribunal or agency." [2] A mere investigation is not a proceeding, for a prosecutor cannot grant redress. In fact, the prosecutor himself will seek redress in court, for and in behalf of the state. The same maybe said of the House, sitting as an investigatory body. It cannot grant redress (the removal of a president) - that is granted by the Senate.
The distinction between an investigation and a proceeding before a tribunal is material for this discussion, because impeachments partake of both an investigation and adjudication. The first step is the investigatory part conducted by the House, to determine whether a complaint is "sufficient in form and substance." The second step is the adjudicatory part, where proceedings are conducted by the Senate, to determine whether or not to remove the president.
The assertion that "proceedings" are made before a judge or tribunal is further supported by the language employed in the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The first time the term "proceedings" is used in the Rules of Criminal Procedure is in reference to a preliminary investigation conducted by a judge. [3] The next instance is in reference to bail, also applied for with a judge. Nowhere is the term "proceedings" used in association with a prosecutor.
Clearly, therefore, the impeachment "proceedings" that may be initiated only once a year, refer to the Articles of Impeachment filed before the Senate as the impeachment tribunal.
Seen in this light then, a Motion to Strike, Motion to Dismiss, or some similar motion may not be entertained by the House, when investigating impeachment complaints. Motions to Dismiss, as provided by the Rules of Court, are only filed in court, not before the investigating officer.
Again, using the analogy of a criminal action, when a complaint-affidavit is filed before a prosecutor, the proper action is to require the respondent to file a counter-affidavit. It is not unusual that several complaints are filed against a respondent.
In such a case, the respondent is required to file counter-affidavits in response to each complaint-affidavit. The better action, then, for the House, in regard to the several complaints filed against the president, is to require counter-affidavits in response to the complaints.
With regard to the amended complaint of the opposition, it is elementary, that an amended complaint retroacts to the date of the original complaint. The administration states that the amendment may be filed only with leave of court.
This would be correct, were the complaint already before the Senate. But the action is still in the investigation stage, so that interpretation does not apply. Neither is there a need to append the opposition complaint as an amendment to the Lozano complaint; it should be treated as a separate complaint-affidavit that must be responded to with a counter-affidavit.
Finally, a House committee is tasked to make a report to the entire House in assembly. The report may be adopted, modified, or even discarded; but it merely serves as an aid to floor debates. It cannot bind the House, for the servant cannot bind the taskmaster. So even if the complaints are dismissed by the committee, it cannot stop a member of the House from rising on personal and collective privilege to present a complaint for impeachment on the floor.
Let us hope that the House leaders read the Constitution and the Rules of Court carefully, so that the impeachment complaints may be given due process.
From ROLANDO GAMALINDA.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment