Contact Details

Rm. N-411, House of Representatives, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
+63 2 931 5497, +63 2 931 5001 local 7370

LAGMAN: NUMBERS NEVER THE STANDARD OF JUDICIOUSNESS

Press Statements
  • Office of Minority Leader Edcel C. Lagman
  • 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137
  • 23 March 2011

 

LAGMAN: NUMBERS NEVER THE

STANDARD OF JUDICIOUSNESS

         

          The overwhelming numbers for the impeachment of the Ombudsman cannot strengthen the chronic weaknesses of the articles of impeachment which constitute a mere compendium of contrived sins of omission of the respondent Ombudsman.

           If the tyranny of numbers is not matched by an ascendancy of reason and superiority in argument, then the result of a numbers game is fragile and vulnerable.

           The sponsors of the complaint had admitted that they dropped the offense of culpable violation because it was difficult to prove and merely relied on the catch-all “betrayal of public trust” unmindful that such betrayal must be of the same severity as the other specific impeachable offenses.

           Like in statutes or laws subsequently declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court which had been enacted by vast majorities, the great numbers supporting the impeachment do not indicate the verity of the complaints.

           The frenzy of a mob is not the standard in holding the lynched victim probably culpable.

           The unexpectedly huge margin impeaching the Ombudsman validates the following:

           1) The improvidently-timed text message of “pork or conscience” had taken its toll on legislators who have long been vulnerable to a “carrot and stick” strategy employed by the Executive as they scramble to “bring home the bacon” to their constituents particularly on a long Lenten break.

           2) The pressure exerted by the President and his men on partymates and coalition partners to support the impeachment could not be resisted.

           3) The sustained propaganda war waged by the administration against the Ombudsman had erroneously but successfully portrayed the Ombudsman as a coddler of corruption.

           4) Partisanship had supplanted judiciousness as the proceedings had regrettably degenerated into an inordinate partisan exercise.

           5) The Ombudsman was denied due process as she was barred from adducing her evidence or even submitting a memorandum after she was liberated to present without legal constraints the full advocacy of her defense consequent to the dismissal of her motion for reconsideration by the Supreme Court.