More than just a matter of numbers

Many of us witnessed, Tuesday afternoon, the proceedings of our House of Representatives as its Committee on Justice tackled the explosive issue of the impeachment complaints lodged against Her Excellency, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The verbiage was emotional and the points raised blurred among us whose grasp of parliamentary procedures was less comprehensive.

When the gavel of the presiding officer, Rep. Simeon Datumanong, banged to bring forth a sudden end to the exposition of Congressman Ace Barbers, bedlam, never expected by many, came. Upheaval of some kind not usually seen amongst the people's representatives erupted. Frustration was etched on the faces of the legislators belonging mainly to the opposition as they filed out of the hall.

As we saw it then, the committee was trying to decide a "prejudicial question." This term, in theory, applies to ordinary court proceedings, as one that arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein and the cognizance of which appertains to another tribunal. Defined as such, it involves two cases one of which needs to be disposed of ahead of the other. That's why it is called prejudicial. Applied to the justice committee session, it was a question as to which impeachment complaint had to be entertained.

Apparent was the stand of the ruling majority that there were three impeachment complaints, the case filed by Atty. Oliver Lozano being the first, the Lopez complaint labeled as the second complaint and the third, the amended complaint as written by those who want the president ousted through that constitutional process. If there were, indeed, three such complaints, the constitutional provision barring the filing of more than one impeachment complaint within a year should apply.

And so, at 3:47 PM yesterday, the Committee on Justice of the Lower House voted, in the absence of the minority, imposing its superior number. To them, the Lozano complaint barred the Lopez and the amended complaint.

True to the off tangent nature of this column, let me speak of a personal experience of a frustration which, though of an insignificant degree comparably, was frustration just the same.

Shortly after Typhoon Ruping devastated our metropolis, our city government found it necessary to borrow funds to supplement its available monetary resources needed to repair the damage wrought by the super typhoon. Borrowing was the fastest way to get the necessary funds. And so it came to pass that the city council, acting in accordance with the mandate of the law, had to discuss ways on how to spend the money.

Among the items on which a sizeable amount was to be spent was for the construction of a certain barangay road in the mountains. That road was not existing as of the time the typhoon hit our city and so naturally it did not suffer any damage. To me, then, an expenditure on it could not be charged against the borrowed money. After all, the money was specifically generated from the borrowing for a clear purpose of using it for repairs. Yet, the government was bent on appropriating a part of the borrowed money for that peculiar purpose.

Like what the opposition in Congress did the other day and yesterday, the city council opposition, a decade and a half ago, made a clear exposition. No doubt, the minority congressmen explained in clear and understandable language that the President's day in court be better served with an impeachment case being tried by the Senate rather than the complaint being suppressed at the house, in the same vein that, in our city, the minority also pointed out that no part of the borrowed money could be lawfully used on a project that had nothing to do with repairs. Just the same, when the division of the house came, superior numbers ruled.

But truth, in the case of the suppressed impeachment and lawful spending in the case of the borrowed city funds are just more than matters of numbers!