Stop that creep!

Pro and anti-impeachment forces in the House seem hopelessly divided on whether the amended complaint filed by 42 congressmen can immediately be sent to the Senate for trial once the magic number of 79 is reached. This strategy, which the opposition calls "creeping impeachment," is opposed by the majority party as contrary to the Constitution.

There is precedent for this, Minority Leader Francis Escudero reminds his colleagues. During the impeachment of President Joseph Estrada, the complaint was supported by less than one-third of the congressmen. Subsequently, however, that threshold was crossed when more Representatives endorsed the complaint.

When the House Committee sent the complaint to the full body, then Speaker Manny Villar dramatically announced he was sending the case to the Senate, without asking for a vote of the full House, since his duty to transmit was "ministerial."

On the other hand, the current chairman of the House Justice Committee, Rep. Simeon Datumanong, a former Secretary of Justice under GMA, argues that the one-third requirement must be met at the time of the filing of the complaint, citing Article XI, Sec. 3 (4) of the Constitution which says: "In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed."

At any time the requisite number is reached, the opposition argues, all proceedings in the Committee on Justice should cease and the amended complaint, which would then constitute the Articles of Impeachment, should be forwarded to the Senate and trial should proceed forthwith.

Not so fast, say Datumanong and others in the majority. Since the requisite number was not reached at the time of the filing of the amended complaint, it was referred by Speaker Joe de Venecia to the Committee on Justice. Thus, another provision of the Constitution governs which says in relevant part: "…The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution…" (Art. XI, Sec. 3(2))

To the opposition, referral to the Committee consigns the impeachment to the "Mona Lisa" fate former PCGG Chair Haydee Yorac said was suffered by many of their cases at the courts: They just lie there and they die there.

At the very least, the sixty session days allowed by the Constitution means that, even at the rate of three hearing days per week, the maximum allowed under House rules since no sessions are generally held on Mondays and Fridays, the Committee can take at least five months fiddling with the case.

But to determine whether the amended complaint is sufficient in form and substance, Committee Chair Datumanong has already announced he will call for counter-affidavits, as well as documentary and testimonial evidence. The matter might then languish in Committee for a year at least.

Then, of course, the majority coalition which naturally outnumbers the opposition in the Committee can rule that the amended complaint is NOT sufficient either in form or substance, or both.

But the opposition still has a remedy. Under Art. XI, Sec. 3(3) of the Constitution, one-third of the House members can "override" a "contrary resolution" of the Committee on Justice and nevertheless send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.

The argument is often made that this power to override is precisely what makes the proceedings in the Justice Committee superfluous once the requisite number is reached. Why delay the impeachment further if, at the level of the full House, the matter will be referred to the Senate anyway, either by a favorable resolution of the Committee or by that group of one-third overriding an unfavorable resolution.

The response to this argument tends to be somewhat technical, although not entirely without reason. Once referred to the "proper Committee," the Constitution requires a "report" and "corresponding resolution" be submitted to the House. Further, the Committee is required to conduct hearings and act "within sixty session days."

Datumanong et al. insist that they are not under any obligation to rush to judgment, and are entitled to the sixty session days allowed within which to come up with a thoroughly-considered and well-substantiated report and resolution.

Moreover, the vote in the full House referred to Art. 3(3) is upon either a "favorable resolution" or a "contrary resolution" submitted by the Committee. In either case, a resolution seems to be required. The Constitution is silent on what happens if a one-third is vote acquired in the interim between the filing of the complaint and the voting in the full House on the Committee resolution.

And, finally, we are reminded that even in the so-called Villar precedent, the House Committee did forward the complaint to the plenary. Since, however, the complaint was by that time backed by more than the required one-third of the House, the Speaker saw no point in further delaying the process by conducting another vote.

The opposition points out that a "creeping" impeachment is not prohibited by the Constitution or, for that matter, by House rules. Whether the majority will take the cue and tighten impeachment rules (which have not been approved as of this writing), so as to prevent a short-cutting of the process, remains to be seen.

At the end of the day, though, what the majority must weigh is whether, regardless of the outcome of the technical and legalistic debates, undue delay in the Justice Committee phase or an eventual dismissal of the impeachment complaint in committee will be seen as a cover-up or as outright railroading.

The majority solons might then have to guess whether or not the struggle will shift to the streets, which is exactly what we don’t want. What we want is closure, not persistent and interminable conflict.