Call it youthful exuberance or impulse but I think it was wrong for the pro impeachment group to walk out of the proceedings and throw papers around. When tempers fly, reason is thrown out of the window. They simply alienated a lot of potential sympathizers and still uncommitted colleagues leaning on their side because of the belief that they are espousing the rule of law. They know from the start that the ruling majority is out to stretch their interpretation of the house rules on impeachment by raising those "prejudicial" questions. They are smart enough to detect early in the game that the strategy of the ruling majority is to use the Lozano complaint to kill the impeachment. It is quite obvious to them that even if the Lozano complaint is defective as it lacks the required verification and was only subscribed and sworn to by complainant, the Justice Committee will nevertheless consider it as sufficient in form so that its filing becomes the first step in the initiation of the impeachment proceedings. With such move, they should have expected that Committee will then subsequently find said complaint as insufficient in substance and dismiss it like what really happened. This ploy of the majority is quite obvious to escape their notice. It was meant to preclude consideration of the properly verified and more substantial amended complaint because, with the filing and referral of the Lozano complaint to the Justice Committee and the latter’s action thereon, an impeachment proceeding has already been "initiated", so that no other impeachment proceeding based on the amended complaint can be subsequently initiated within one year, as provided in Section 3 (5) Article XI of the Constitution.
In a democracy where the majority rules such action of the Justice Committee must prevail. And the wisdom of the ruling cannot be questioned or can it be changed by throwing tantrums. Much more so because impeachment is substantially a political process involving questions in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislature. The more sober and reasonable step is to question its constitutionality before the proper forum. The exercise of a delegated power, like the power of impeachment conferred upon the lower house may still be subject to judicial review if it transcends the constitutionally imposed limits (Francisco Jr. vs. House 415 SCRA 41). In this case something is constitutionally amiss in the justice committee’s action of accepting only one complaint, that was even unverified, as sufficient in form to initiate the impeachment proceeding.
The pro-impeachment group can intervene in the case filed in the Supreme Court by Atty. Francisco, Jr. involving this very issue. As legislators participating in the impeachment process, their interest in the case is more direct and substantial.
Or they can play the same numbers’ game being played by the majority. Politics, like jueteng is a game of numbers. In the political process of impeachment, a mere 1/3 of the members of the lower house or 79 Congressmen can overrule the majority. If the lower house does not have at least 79 congressmen interested in knowing the "truth", then we just have to grin and bear it for we truly deserve such bunch of Congressmen we elected. Maybe, to make the situation more bearable, we could believe our honorable congressmen and presume that the "truth" is already staring at us so that there is really nothing more to search for.
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net