The difference is that if the only question were whether there was a prejudicial question or not, the minority would still be able to debate the matter of which complaint ought to be handled by the Committee when, not if, the majority wins the vote on the prejudicial question.
But today, we’re told, the Committee will decide whether it will consider the Lozano complaint, the Lopez complaint, the opposition’s amended complaint, or all three taken together. The voting is likely to be in favor of the Lozano complaint.
The opposition is seeing the handwriting on the wall. The House proceedings are going in one, and only one, direction: a quick dismissal of the impeachment complaint. A two-fisted, drag-out fracas now seems improbable because the economic situation has declined materially and now holds all sorts of fearsome prospects for the country and, naturally, for GMA’s own incumbency.
The consensus among businessmen is that devastating increases in the price of fuel, the effects of the full implementation of e-vat, and the consequent hardship on larger sectors of the population, including the middle class, now make it imperative to get the business of impeachment behind us ASAP.
Whether she will still be able to govern after that process is, of course, the other "great debate" which is splitting the citizenry, apart from cha-cha. Still, pragmatism may dictate that it is better to prove ability to govern than to remain entangled in the basic question of whether one is entitled to the seat of power in the first place.
The latter spells paralysis while the former, albeit presenting daunting challenges, does enable the leader to take initiatives which, if successful, may still change hearts and minds. A long shot, to be sure, but it still offers her the best chance of political survival.
On the other hand, faced with certain defeat at the hands of a determined majority, and bereft of the numbers needed to win any issue presented for a floor vote, has the minority thrown in the towel? No way! Not if you listen to the more vocal among the opposition stalwarts who maintain a brave, never-say-die demeanor.
This is no mere self-deceiving hype. The opposition truly believes that it can still play the "creeping impeachment" game. One reason Malacañang thought it necessary to call House supporters to a sumptuous meal cum booster rally is the intel report that there are turncoats in the majority just waiting to come out of the closet at the right time.
There are even rumors that some of the more "practical" ones are simply waiting for Presidential largesse to be securely in their hands before they jump ship, You know, the old have your cake and eat it too gambit. The Palace, as a kind of loyalty check, is asking those who have remained strangely quiet to be more vocal about their support.
Whatever the truth about those coveted 79 votes being in the bag, the issue regarding "creeping impeachment" is back on the front burner, after being dismissed by majority solons upon the approval of the House impeachment rules.
The majority, led by Justice Committee chair Simeon Datumanong, has said that the rules don’t permit it. Since the complainants missed their chance when only 42 members of the House signed the complaint, the next time the 79 votes become relevant is when the full House meets to vote on the report and resolution of the Committee.
It appears, though, that the minority now has an argument which stems from the very language of the rules. If their interpretation is correct, the majority has overlooked a loophole which may enable the minority to send the complaint to the Senate for trial.
Under Section 13 of the impeachment rules, a verified complaint/resolution of impeachment filed by at least one-third of the House "shall constitute the articles of impeachment" and "shall be endorsed to the Senate in the same manner as an approved bill of the House." The complaint/ resolution "must, at the time of filing, be verified and sworn to before the Secretary General" by that one-third of the House.
According to now San Fernando, Pampanga Mayor Oscar Rodriguez, who was chairman of the House Committee on Justice during the Erap Estrada impeachment process, this was the provision relied upon by the Committee when it forwarded the case to the then Speaker who, in turn, sent the matter immediately to the Senate.
Then Representative Rodriguez argued that Section 13 is not on its face limited only to the filing of the impeachment complaint but refers to a situation when, at any time during the process, one-third of the House decide to file a complaint or resolution. This was also intended, he says, to address the situation when a protracted proceeding at the Justice Committee and at the full House would be pointless because a contrary resolution of the Committee would be overridden anyway.
This issue can be expected to attract more heated and lengthy debates. But there is a lot at stake in this issue. It’s really the last card which the opposition can play, and is totally dependent on its being able to deliver the 79 votes as advertised.
GMA, it is now clear, does not want the Committee to sit on this case for the full 60 session days allowed in the Constitution. She looks forward to a Senate trial with even less relish. Both developments just put too many political variables in play, many of them beyond her control.
If the opposition does not have the 79 votes, and if the pundits are right that there is wide-spread disinterest in impeachment because of more urgent problems which threaten economic security, let’s pack up and call it a day. Our energies are better spent on the more mundane tasks of surviving in an increasingly hostile world out there.