The real loser

“Sufficiency in substance” of any complaint whether in an ordinary action or in such a vital and extraordinary action like the impeachment of the President, Vice President, Members of the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman is not really a contentious and debatable issue. It becomes controversial only because its plain and simple meaning is purposely twisted and grossly misinterpreted to carry out a pre-planned and well orchestrated move to thwart a full blown inquiry as to the truth about the culpability of the official being impeached. The Justice Committee of the Lower House once more proved this point when it junked the latest impeachment complaint against the President for lack of substance after going through the motions as called for in a script.

Those who are not well versed in legal matters may simply set aside and forget this latest episode as another one of those bickering among our politicians with differing political persuasions that has become a regular fare in this “democratic” government. But if properly informed and sufficiently enlightened, every citizen will surely find the action of the 42 Congressmen in this case so distasteful and obnoxious because they have made a mockery of the public trust reposed on them.

It is elementary and universally accepted without exception that a complaint is “sufficient in substance” if it contains a recital of the ultimate facts to be proved or the facts in issue. These are the principal facts which directly consist of the wrongful act or omission of the defendant. The term does not refer to the details or particulars of the evidence by which these principal facts are to be established. A complaint is sufficient in substance even if it does not contain a recital of the evidentiary matters tending to prove the principal fact in issue.

Indeed in determining whether a complaint is sufficient in substance, inquiry as to the truth of the facts in issue is not called for. Such truth is even assumed. The test of sufficiency of the complaint only revolves around the following questions: Does it fairly apprise the defendant of the complainant’s real contentions and claims against him? Could he be misled to his surprise and injury?

To be sure, even though the allegations of the complaint are vague or indefinite, it should not be dismissed for insufficiency of substance. In such a case the recourse of the defendant is to file a motion for bill of particulars (Ramos vs. Condez 20 SCRA 1146). The better rule is that pleadings and remedial laws should be liberally construed so that litigants may have ample opportunity to prove their respective claims in-order to avoid possible denial of substantial justice due to legal technicalities (Far East vs. Court of Appeals, 225 SCRA 249).

The latest impeachment complaint against the President obviously contains allegations of her involvement at least in following wrongful acts and omissions: the Garci Tapes, the national broadband network deal with ZTE Corp. of China, the electoral fraud in 2004, the Northrail project, the fertilizer fund scam, the Quedancor scam, the P500,000 bribery to Congressmen, the Mt Diwalwal gold exploration. Only the allegations of extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances perhaps can be said to lack substance, but the rest are clearly allegations of principal facts to be proved. With such allegations made under oath by the complainants, there is no question that the complaint is sufficient in substance.

Some of these allegations are “recycled or rehashed” but this is not an issue for the Justice Committee to resolve in determining whether the complaint is sufficient in substance. It is only called upon at this stage of the proceedings to find out whether there are enough principal facts allege in the complaint that require an answer from the official implicated. Here, the allegations, whether recycled or not, are substantial enough to require such answer. Indeed they have to be rehashed precisely because the defendant was never required to answer or refute them in previous years for the proper meeting of the issues and for the presentation of evidence proving their respective claims.

Thus, it is also a brazen and grievous error to invoke res judicata as a ground to junk the impeachment complaint for lack of substance. Res judicata is a plea to bar an action when the facts alleged and in issue had been the subject of a prior proceeding between the same parties and that prior proceeding had been adjudicated upon the merits. In this case, the facts in issue as raised in the complaint have never been adjudicated on the merits in prior impeachment proceedings plainly because the same bunch of sneering legislators have aborted them.

As years passed, these unwarranted and repulsive acts and grave abuse of discretion in disposing off impeachment complaints are becoming more brazen and shameless. This year, the indecent haste in disposing off the complaint is so obvious. The ruling majority acted swiftly right after the summation of the arguments as if on cue, unmindful of the consequences of their act in breaking away from a universally accepted principle of law. It is so apparent that a decision has already been made long before, and they just simulated a process to give a semblance of fair play.  

But with such an inconclusive ending, the true loser here is the President because the public opinion has been firmly shaped by the airing of the serious charges against her that have not been sufficiently and satisfactorily refuted and disproven. 

And so, another sad and abominable chapter in the history of this hapless Republic is about to end. It is a chapter that has become a vicious cycle occurring every year because the ruling majority in the Lower House has shed off all sense of shame and accountability to the people they are supposed to serve in exchange for partisan political interest and loyalty to the wielders of power and keepers of the public funds. This vicious cycle will keep on coming back for as long as we have this current crop of politicians in our midst.  

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]