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.
Pertinent laws on disclosure of the SALN (Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Networth)
Part One (sowee, because i wake up at the same hour regardless of everything — have been advised by the health consultant to be asleep by 11am; can’t always comply but i try, don’t ask why because you’ll get a bye-bye; ta-tah, i’ll finish this in the next post)
If a reporter asks for access to the SALN (to look at, or to view and to photocopy at his/her own expense) of a public official; and is refused, is there anyone liable for such refusal? Who would be liable?
The following are the pertinent provisions:
The Constitution:
“Art. XI, Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law” (Underscoring supplied. Article XI, Section 17, 1987 Constitution).
“(I)n the manner provided by law….” refers to the following requirements laid down by law:
Republic Act 6713, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees:
“Section 8. Statements and Disclosure. – Public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.”
Republic Act 6713, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees:
The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act of the Philippines, as follows:
“Section 7. Statement of Assets and Liabilities. – Every public officer, within thirty days after assuming office and, thereafter, on or before the fifteenth day of April following the close of every calendar year, as well as upon the expiration of his term of office, or upon his resignation or separation from office, shall prepare and file with the office of the corresponding Department Head, or in the case of a Head of Department or Chief of an independent office, with the Office of the President, a true detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year; xxx….”(Section 7, Republic Act 3019, as amended, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act of the Philippines, as amended by RA 3047, PD 677 and PD 1288, January 24, 1978)
[TO BE CONTINUED. zzzzzzz(pretending to sleep for the health consultant)]
