Contact Details

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

Press Statements
Office of Minority Leader
Edcel C. Lagman
31 December 2011
0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137
 
        Since the purported “verification” by 188 Representatives was the speed ticket which brought forthwith the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato Corona to the Senate for trial, then a preliminary hearing on the allegedly fatal verification is in order.
 
        A prior determination of the legality and validity of the verification is not dilatory but necessary to place the horse before the cart, a valid verification as a condition precedent to impeachment and trial.
 
        If the validity of the verification is sustained by the Senate, then the impeachment trial must proceed. However, if the verification is found to be flawed and fatally defective, then the Senate must dismiss the Articles of Impeachment and return the infirm complaint to the House of Representatives to complete the verification process of at least 1/3 of the Representatives and re-file the same or for the Committee on Justice to conduct the impeachment proceedings if 1/3 is not obtained.
 
        A valid verification is required both by the Constitution and the Rules on Impeachment of the House of Representatives.
 
        Section 3(4) of Article XI of the Constitution provides that “In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”
 
        There is a valid verification under the House Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings if the complainants swear under oath that they “have read the contents” of the complaint, and that “the allegations therein are true of our own knowledge and belief on the basis of our reading and appreciation of documents and other records pertinent thereto”.
 
        It is not sufficient that a third party explained to the complainants the contents of the complainant or showed to them a power point presentation. Personal reading and appreciation of the complaint is mandatory.
 
        It is physically impossible for 188 Representatives to have read and understood the 57-page complaint in a couple of hours given the admission that only four (4) hard copies were available in the caucus called for the affixing of the complainants’ signatures during which no questions were entertained.
 
        Clearly, overkill can boomerang and inordinate alacrity can breach the rules.

Press Statements
Office of the Minority Leader
Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
19 December 2011
0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137
 
APPOINTMENT OF ARMM
GOVERNOR PREMATURE
 
        The projected oath-taking of former Anak Mindanao party-list Congressman Mujiv Hataman as officer-in-charge (OIC) of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) is premature and precipitate because the decision of the Supreme Court on the constitutionality and validity of the President’s appointment of ARMM OICs is not final.
 
        Several petitioners led by Minority Leader Edcel C. Lagman have filed separate motions for reconsideration in the consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court asking that the close 8 to 7 voting in favor of constitutionality be reversed.
 
        Judicial courtesy demands that the Executive, like any other litigant, must await the finality of a Supreme Court decision and must not preempt the High Court’s final action.
 
        The pending motions for reconsideration assail the legislative grant of authority to the President of appointing OICs on the following grounds:
                                                                                    
(1)        The representative and elective character of ARMM’s regional governor, vice governor and legislators, as expressly provided by the Constitution, excludes the medium of appointment for said positions;
 
(2)        The grant of the prerogative to appoint ARMM regional officers to the President unduly expands the President’s power of supervision over ARMM to one of control in violation of the Constitution; and
 
(3)        Presidential appointment of OICs derogates autonomy in ARMM as the OICs will be beholden to the appointing power and not to the sovereign people, and OICs serve at the pleasure of the President who could remove them anytime.

Press Statements
  • Office of the Minority Leader
  • Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
  • Tel No. 4155455
  • Mobile No. 0918-9120137
  • 13 December 2011

 

              The 57-page impeachment complaint is destitute of merit as it is a compendium of self-serving conclusions of fact and law, spiced with hearsay allegations and motherhood statements.

             The impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona cannot be buttressed by a perceived popular pulse because the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary is neither a commodity in the market of popularity.

             The impeachment complaint was prefaced with repeated invocations on the alleged “midnight appointment” of Chief Justice Corona, but the complainants completely forgot that the Supreme Court in De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council promulgated as early as 17 March 2010 or almost two months before the May 2010 elections, a unanimous decision that there is no such “midnight appointment” and in fact directed the Judicial and Bar Council to “submit to the incumbent President (PGMA) the shortlist of nominees for the position of Chief Justice on or before May 17, 2010”.

             Verily, the former President did not appoint Chief Justice Corona until she got the go signal from the Supreme Court.

             The impeachment against the Chief Justice cannot be based on the collegial decisions of the Supreme Court where the majority adjudicated with finality justiciable issues as the ultimate arbiter of legal disputes.

             Moreover, some of these decisions more particularly on alleged gerrymandering and creation of LGUs have been positively acted upon by the three main departments of the government namely: the Legislative Department when the Congress passed the challenged statutes; by the Executive Department when the enactment of the statute was completed with the approval of the President; and by the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of justiciable issues.

             While the complainants invoked that the “principle of immutability of final judgment is one of the primordial rules for having a credible and executive system of administration of justice” they are the ones derogating the principle of immutability when they challenged and anchored their impeachment complaint on final decisions of the Supreme Court.

             The railroading of the impeachment complaint which outpaced the bullet train made the verification of the complainants a farce because it took them only a couple of hours to complete the grand design.

            If 188 complainants were allotted a minimum of ten minutes each to read and comprehend the 57-page complaint, it would take them 31 hours to attest that they have individually read the complaint.

           

Press Statements
  • Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
  • Minority Leader
  • 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137
  • 12 December 2011

 

             The impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona is the mother of all blackmails.

 

             Many of the administration allies in the House of Representatives were blackmailed into signing the impeachment complaint by threatening those who would refuse to sign with the deprivation of their Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and other funding releases for their respective districts.

 

             The Supreme Court justices are being blackmailed not to decide pending cases against the Aquino Administration, otherwise the wrath of impeachment will be on them.

 

             We hope the Senators who will act as impeachment judges will be strong and judicious not to succumb to similar blackmails.

 

              The derogation of our democratic institutions is almost complete with the emasculation of the House of Representatives, the violation of civil liberties, the impairment of the rule of law, and now the destruction of the Supreme Court and the judiciary.

 

 

Press Statements
  • Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
  • 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137
  • 07 December 2011

 

            The Committee on Justice’s sustaining by a vote of 40 to 7 the sufficiency in substance of the impeachment complaint against Supreme Court Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo is the best timing for a bad precedent.

               It gives political support to the relentless assault of President Aquino against the Supreme Court, particularly Chief Justice Renato Corona and majority of the Justices.

               It portends of more partisan tirades and adverse actions against the High Court.

             The Castillo impeachment complaint has remained unacted since the Committee on Justice on 18 May 2011 or almost six months ago found the complaint sufficient in form by a close vote of 11 to 10.

              The voting was patently premature because while the complainants alleged as the actionable decision the Supreme Court ruling in the Vinuya case, they failed and refused to submit to the Committee and its members authentic copies of said decision.

              Similarly, while the complainants alleged and minimized the import and relevance of the Supreme Court per curiam decision exonerating Justice Castillo of any wrong doing based on “plagiarism”, they also refused and failed to provide the Committee the certified copies of said decision.

              The reason for the refusal of the complainants to furnish the Committee with said relevant documents is obvious and self-serving because the subject records will validate that the complaint is devoid of substance.

              The Vinuya decision if read in its entirety will show that even if the alleged plagiarized articles are discarded, the principal thrust or ratio decidende of the decision – that the Government cannot be compelled to initiate action on behalf of comfort women – will not be affected or eroded.

              The decision of the Supreme Court finding Justice Castillo not culpable of plagiarism will defeat the bare allegations of the complainant, since the High Court ruled that “a judge writing to resolve a dispute, whether trial or appellate, is exempted from a charge of plagiarism even if ideas, words or phrases from a law review article, novel thoughts published in a legal periodical or language from a party’s brief are used without giving attribution.”

              The Supreme Court further said that “on the whole, his (Castillo’s) work was original. He had done an honest work.”