GARAPAL ANG KORTE SUPREMA (Ikalawa at Huling Bahagi)

IBINATAY ng Korte Suprema ang kanilang kontrobersyal na desisyon tungkol sa impeachment trial ni Misfit Sara sa mga maling konklusyon ng mga mali-maling datos at fact na nakalap ng sumulat umano na mahistrado na si Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen. Lubhang minadali at kung larong basketball ito, mistulang fastbreak ang ginawa ng mga mahistrado lalo na si Leonen, ang may-akda ng ponencia.

Kung magtiyaga lang na magsaliksik ang Mataas na Hukuman at binasa ang mga House journal at report, maaaring nagbigay ito ng balanse at patas na desisyon. Ngunit hindi ito ang nangyari. Batay sa mga opisyal na dokumento, minadali ang pasya upang ihabol sa SONA ni BBM noong Lunes. At bago ang pagbubukas ng Senate impeachment court na nakatakda sa ika-4 ng Agosto.

Ayon sa aming source na isang manananggol na sumusubaybay sa isyu, humingi ng Korte Suprema noong ika-8 ng Hulyo sa Camara de Representantes na magsumite ito ng hindi lalampas na sampung araw ng mga sagot sa isang interrogatory (listahan ng mga katanungan) hinggil sa impeachment ni Misfit Sara.

Sinagot ito ng Camara sa isang opisyal na talastas noong ika-21 ng Hulyo. Walang pasok sa mga sumunod na araw – Martes, Miyerkoles, at Huwebes dahil sa matinding ulan, bagyo, at baha. Ngunit noong Biyernes, ika-25 ng Hulyo, nagpatawag ng en banc session ang Korte Suprema upang talakayin umano ang ibang isyu. Ngunit nangyari ang himala dahil biglang lumabas ang desisyon at pirmado ito ng 13 mahistrado.

Fastbreak ang nangyari sa desisyon na mukhang hindi si Leonen ang sumulat ng ponencia. May kumakalat na pakiwari na isinulat ito ng isang grupo ng mga junior lawyer at ipinasa lang sa mga mahistrado upang lagdaan at maging opisyal.

Isinumite ng Camara ang Articles of Impeachment laban kay Misfit Sara noong ika-5 ng Pebrero, ngunit hindi kumilos at inupuuan ito ng Senado sa sumunod na limang buwan. Ilang araw pagkatapos, nagsumite ng petisyon sa Korte Suprema upang hingin ng kampo ni Misfit Sara na ideklarang labag sa Saligang Batas ang Articles of Impeachment. Inupuuan ito ng Mataas na Hukuman ng limang buwan at noon lamang ika-8 ng Hulyo ito kumilos.

Nakakagulat na may desisyon ang Korte Suprema sa loob ng isang araw – 97 pahina ang desisyon. Nagpasya ang Korte Suprema kahit walang proseso. Walang isinumiteng memorandum ang magkabilang panig, walang palitan ng katwiran sa oral argument, o wala rin resolusyon sa pagtatapos ng proseso. Isang panig ang pinakinggan at ito ang panig ni Misfit Sara. Ano nga ba ang mga factual error ng Korte Suprema. Talakayin ko ito sa Ingles.

ERRONEOUS FACT: On page 8 of the decision, it said that “at 4:47 p.m. of February 5, 2025, House Secretary [Reginald} Velasco transmitted the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate even without a plenary vote.” It cited as reference the online news articles of ABS-CBN.

CORRECTION: First, “the February Complaint of the Articles of Impeachment were referred by the Secretary General and included in the Plenary’s Order of Business on February 5, 2025.” Second, “the plenary voted on the motion of Majority Leader [Manuel] Dalipe to transmit the February Complaint to the Senate as the Articles of Impeachment. The plenary even proceeded to vote on the election of public prosecutors.” Hence, a plenary vote occurred in the House contrary to what the Supreme Court said in its verdict.

The House has several pieces of evidence to back up its claim. They include Velasco’s transmittal letter to Speaker Martin Romualdez, House Journal No. 36, which shows the sequence of events that transpired in the plenary session, and House Report for Feb. 5, which provides an official transcript of the deliberations in the plenary.

ERRONEOUS FACTS: On page 56, “the House of Representatives, however, was unable to act on the first three impeachment complaints because of the adjournment of the 19th Congress.” On page 68,”the only time the House recorded a discussion relating to the first three impeachment complaints was on January 13, 2025, when Kabataan Party List Representative [Raoul] Manuel delivered a privilege speech … The turn of events show that the first three complaints were neglected or willfully unacted upon.”

CORRECTIONS: First, “the plenary acted on the December complaints on February 5.” Second, “a motion was made and voted upon by the plenary before 3:50 pm, resolving to transmit the December complaints to the Archives in view of the fact that the plenary had already resolved to transmit the February 5 complaint to Senate as the Articles of Impeachment.” Third, “the December complaints were acted upon and resolved to be transmitted to the archives, at least 3-1/2 hours before the Plenary adjourned at 7:27 pm on February 5.”

As supporting pieces of evidence, the same House Journal 36 and House Report for February 5 were cited. They contain the pertinent details to prove the corrections.

ERRONEOUS FACTS:On page 61, “the December complaints were dismissed ‘to do the second mode’… “ On page 75, “”in light of archiving , dismissal, or rendering of the first three complaints as functus officio, the Articles of Impeachment filed on February 5, 2025, is therefore barred because of the violation of the one-year ban under Section 3(5) [of Article 11 of the Constitution].”

CORRECTION: First,“the December complaints were archived or dismissed by Plenary after the February complaint had already been acted upon by the Plenary, which approved the same for transmittal to the Senate as the Articles of Impeachment.” Second, “it was Plenary’s prior action on the February complaint which barred from taking any other action on the December complaints apart from archiving them, and not the other way around.”

Again, the House Journal 36 and House Report for February 5 were cited.