Charlie V Manalo
Weren’t these the same Yellows who declared then that an impeachment proceeding is not a criminal trial but a political act?”
The Yellows’ reaction to the impeachment complaint filed by writer Ed Cordevilla against Associate Justice Marivic Leonen only validates what we have known ever since—that they were very wrong in impeaching and declaring guilty the late Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona.
When Cordevilla, with the assistance of lawyer Larry Gadon, filed the impeachment complaint against Leonen last Monday, the Yellows were quick to dismiss the complaint as nothing but a vindictive act executed by the Marcoses for Leonen’s failure to resolve the electoral protest of former Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr against Ma. Leonor “Leni” Robredo. This, they say, is attested by the fact that the complaint was endorsed by no less than Ilocos Norte Rep. Angelo Marcos Barba, an uncle of the former senator.
House Deputy Speaker, Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, seemed to have already prejudged the case when he said newspaper accounts which were cited in the complaint, won’t hold as evidence. He also vowed the House of Representatives will be firm on its jurisdiction over the case as rumors abound Leone could suffer the same fate as that of Ma. Lourdes Sereno whose appointment as Chief Justice was invalidated following a quo warrant petition initiated against her for failing to file her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth, an offense she reportedly shares with Leonen.
Former Associate Justice Antonio Carpio also joined the fray, saying there is no case with Leonen over his unfiled SALN as the prescription period for said offense is only eight years and Leonen supposedly failed to file his SALN, more than ten years ago when he was still teaching at the University of the Philippines.
First things first. On Barba’s endorsement. So what if he is a relative of Bongbong whose protest has been before the SC for over four years now, more than a year on Leonen’s desk? According to reports, Leonen is supposed to release his ponencia on the case in October next year, just days before the filing of the certificates of candidacy for the 2022 elections. Will a different endorser change the narrative? The story will remain the same – Leonen is doing Bongbong and the people an injustice for delaying the decision over the case, in the same manner he is doing an injustice for those who have pending protest cases before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal which he also heads.
Is that being vindictive? Clearly, Leonen has been sitting on his cases over the years, all 82 of them. Have the Yellows been that vocal, accusing former Malacañang’s resident bum of vindictiveness when he effected the impeachment of Corona, whose only crime was upholding the invalidity of the stock distribution option issued by Cory Aquino which effectively exempted their family-owned Hacienda Luisita from agrarian reform?
Newspaper accounts will not hold as evidence in the impeachment case. Well, did the Yellows and their allies from the Left have any piece of evidence against Corona when they impeached him? As far as I remember, they have only gotten hold of their “evidence” during the trial proper when they were mysteriously handed by a small lady or have been left in front of the gate of the debonaire congressman from Quezon City.
Why do I have an uneasy feeling this case would be dismissed? Aside from the fact Rodriguez had declared there is no evidence against Leonen, he is firm in saying he won’t let the case off his hands, just like what happened in Sereno’s case.
According to Rodriguez, “the Constitution is very clear. Impeachable officials like Supreme Court associate justices can only be removed by impeachment,” as he stressed that “the Constitution is supreme over the rules of court.
But Gadon can take the former law dean to some schooling when he said that while it is true the House has the executive authority in initiating an impeachment proceeding, Sereno’s case was decided not on the merits of an impeachable offense but that of an act she committed prior to her appointment.
Perhaps Congressman Rufus forgot the fact that the ground relied on the quo warranto of Sereno is different from grounds of impeachment,” says Gadon.