Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez this time threatens to cause the impeachment of Supreme Court Justices who would issue temporary restraining orders (TROs) to stop the implementation of infrastructure projects particularly the construction of the Metro Rail Transit (MRT)-Light Rail Transit (LRT) common station on EDSA in Quezon City.

Alvarez overlooks that under R.A. No. 8975, the Supreme Court can issue TROs and writs of preliminary injunction to restrain the implementation of infrastructure projects, unlike lower and inferior courts who are prohibited from issuing injunctive reliefs.

Section 3 of R.A. No. 8975 provides:

“Prohibition on the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions. – No court, except the Supreme Court, shall issue any temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction against the government, or any of its subdivisions, officials or any person or entity, whether public or private acting under the government direction, to restrain, prohibit or compel the following acts:

“(a) Acquisition, clearance and development of the right-of-way and/or site or location of any national government project;

“(b) Bidding or awarding of contract/project of the national government as defined under Section 2 hereof;

“(c) Commencement, prosecution, execution, implementation, operation of any such contract or project;

“(d) Termination or rescission of any such contract/project; and

“(e) The undertaking or authorization of any other lawful activity necessary for such contract/project. x x x”

He previously threatened to strip Members of the House of their Chairmanship and Deputy Speakership positions if they would vote against the death penalty bill.

He has subsequently backtracked from this threat and held in abeyance the imposition of reprisals.

EDCEL C. LAGMAN

Who would be intimidated next time around by a leader who wields a dud?

The threat of Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez to oust those who would vote against the death penalty bill from their key leadership positions has turned out to be a mere scheming braggadocio.

After frightening and pressuring the fainthearted and ambivalent Representatives to vote for the reimposition of the death penalty, Alvarez has reportedly desisted from executing his oft-repeated threat of reprisal.

The House leadership knew beforehand that the Speaker’s intimidation and pressure could not prevent committed anti-death penalty advocates in voting against against H.B. No. 4727 as they were ready to suffer the adverse consequences of their conscience vote.

The real targets of the Speaker’s intimidation were the more numerous Members who lack courage and will to defy him.

Now that the House leadership has achieved its objective of pressuring most of the majority coalition members to support the administration’s agenda, Alvarez has gone on a “benevolent” retreat.

EDCEL C. LAGMAN

Our expectation of the inevitable, albeit unconscionable, passage on third reading of the death penalty bill did not diminish our lament and frustration of the general demise of conscience and courage, and the ascendancy of threat and pressure in the House of Representatives.

The inordinately short consideration of House Bill No. 4727 seeking the reimposition of the death penalty spanning only 10 session days was stained by flagrant and arrogant violations of the Rules of the House and even of the Constitution perpetrated by House leaders.

The transgressions included: (1) limiting the interpellators to only one hour, which included the time consumed by the answers of the bill’s sponsors; (2) the precipitate termination of the debates despite the fact that 18 more Members were listed and announced to interpellate; and (3) the premature closure of the period of individual amendments even as the page-by-page amendment only reached page three of the seven-page, single-spaced text of the bill.

The violations culminated in the patently premature third reading in violation of the three-day notice rule required by the Constitution of distributing the printed final form of the bill to Members who must be afforded real opportunity to read the final version before voting on its passage.

But what should not be lost in the railroading of the death penalty bill is the courage and will of 54 Members to defy the intimidation and pressure of House leaders and their steadfast commitment to the promotion, protection and fulfillment of human rights, primarily the right to life.

The previous debates and deliberations on major legislation like the comprehensive agrarian reform program, reimposition of the death penalty in 1996, abolition of capital punishment in 2006, expanded value-added tax and reproductive health bill, among others, practically covered lengthy portions of regular Congresses and even more than one regular Congress in the case of the RH proposal.

EDCEL C. LAGMAN

The third and final reading on the death penalty bill which the House leadership scheduled today or tomorrow is premature.

It is not seasonable as it violates the three-day notice rule prescribed by Section 26(2) of Article VI of the Constitution which provides:

“No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days and printed copies thereof in its final form had been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment…”

Similarly, Sec. 58 of Rule X of the Rules of the House provides:

“No bill or joint resolution shall become law unless it passes three (3) readings on separate days and printed copies thereof in its final form are distributed to the Members three (3) days before its passage except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment ...”

The reported distribution of the printed copies to the offices of the Representatives last Thursday and Friday is unavailing and not compliant with the provision of the Constitution because what is required is distribution to the Members, not to their staff members.

The alleged distribution last Thursday is fatally defective because on Thursdays Representatives are not in their respective offices because most of them go home to their respective districts for constituency work and some have appointments with government officials concerning their districts, while Fridays are non-working days in the House of Representatives.

Moreover, allegations that copies were emailed to the Representatives last Thursday or Friday is not compliant as there is no showing that what was emailed was a bona fide copy of the final printed form, and that Representatives actually opened their respective emails on said days. Furthermore, there is also no indication that the email addresses are the Representatives’ actual respective accounts, not the email account of a staff member.

Verily, the first opportunity the Representatives were able to get the printed copies would have been yesterday, Monday, 06 March 2017, when they are presumed to be in their offices since Monday is a session day.

Counting the three-day rule from Monday, and pursuant to the computation that the first day is excluded while the last day is included, the third day will still be on Thursday, 09 March 2017. Consequently, the third reading is seasonable starting Friday, 10 March 2017, but Friday is not a session day.

The third and final reading of House Bill No. 4727 should therefore be next week.

The purpose of the readings on three separate days and the three-day notice rule before final reading was underscored by the Supreme Court with respect to Members of Congress, as follows: “(1) to inform the legislators on the matters they shall vote on and (2) to give them notice that a measure is in progress through the enactment process” (Lagman vs. Ochoa, G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011).

EDCEL C. LAGMAN