Tricks of the trade. Motions.

                         In Re Impeachment case vs. Corona

       Blog admin was able to see only the entry of appearance of the impeachment. Anyway, as to the results of today’s opening:

     The Motion for a Preliminary Hearing was denied.

     The Motion for a Preliminary Hearing was really a motion to hear grounds for dismissal of the impeachment complaint.

       The ground raised — validity of the impeachment complaint for “lack” of verification — is jurisdictional in nature.  Jurisdictional in nature is like saying: “Hey, you, stop hearing the main case because… you probably have no authority or  have no jurisdiction;  because… in the first place, the complaint is void, or of no effect, for not having been verified”.  Verification is when the complainant (the one who filed) swears under oath that he/she has read the complaint and signed it voluntarily, etc. – in ordinary litigation, it’s a  form that you have your client  sign. It is a jurisdictional requirement. Jurisdictional requirement means you get dismissed if you forgot to append it/ embed it. In ordinary litigation,   it is enough that  one signed it – it doesn’t have to be all of the complainants.

      Jurisdiction is the power to hear and decide. It is conferred by law.  Grounds of jurisdiction are usually raised in a Motion to Dismiss.

     Alas.

     This proceeding does not allow a Motion to Dismiss. By its rules.

 What  do lawyers  do whenever a Motion to Dismiss (MTD) is not allowed? They  raise it  anyway. Why…? it’s what lawyers do, silly;  because you might need to say, in the future, that you raised it  the first chance you got.  (In ordinary litigation, sometimes you’ll need to say,  on appeal or certiorari ,  that you raised it the first chance you got) . At least, ni-raise mo (at least you raised it).

     How do you raise it if it’s not allowed?  Hide it in the special affirmative defenses of your Answer.

      In proceedings where an MTD is not allowed, raising it — (as illustrated, jurisdictional is  like saying: “Hey, you, stop hearing the main case, you might not have jurisdiction”), is a long shot. You will be seen through by the court. But you raise it anyway for future use.

     And so therefore, the Motion for a Preliminary Hearing here was really a disguised motion for a hearing on  a motion to dismiss  hidden as special affirmative defenses of the Answer. MTD – not allowed.

    And so of course it was denied.  Good call.  Very efficient, too,  and confident: Today’s hearing is a model for courts of law :  ordinarily, you have judges/ justices  in the RTC / CA/ SC who take months to decide on a motion — may hinihintay (they’re waiting for sumthin’); you have judges who will rule: admitted for whatever purposes it may serve,  for every objection — what the hell is that.

    And so, today’s hearing is exemplar. Let’s see tomorrow.

      (for arguments on why the complaint is considered verified,  please see opinions of most commentarists, it’s a beaten up horse that blog admin will not use here.)

      i’m just telling you about  the tricks of the trade.

     The defense should not lose heart because their opening statement was well-reasoned out.

    That means… when i was hearing it on the TV news program later, i turned my head and took a second look.