The following is the a copy + paste of the first few pages of the intervention filed by Manuel L. Quezon III, lead intervenor, and company.
**************************
**************************
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Constitution Hills, Quezon City
IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, JOSE DE VENECIA III, EDITHA BURGOS, ERLINDA CADAPAN, ROLEX T. SUPLICO, JOSEFINA T. LICHAUCO, H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., RENATO CONSTANTINO, JR., HENRI S. KAHN, FRANCISCO ALCUAZ, REZ CORTEZ, VIRGILIO EUSTAQUIO, JOSE LUIS ALCUAZ, LEAH LOPEZ NAVARRO, CONCEPCION EMPENO, ELMER LABOG, ARMANDO L. ALBARILLO, ROMEO S. CLAMOR, and BEBU BULCHAND, DANILO RAMOS, Complainants,
x-----------------------------------------x
MANUEL L. QUEZON III,
MARCK RONALD RIMORIN,
EDWIN LACIERDA,
JEREMY I. GATDULA,
ARBET W. BERNARDO,
MARIA A. JOSE,
RICHARD M. RIVERA,
PITCH MANGONDATO,
LT. GEN. FORTUNATO ABAT (RET),
JOSE T. ARCE JR,
ED BACUNGAN
Intervenors,
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION
MANUEL L. QUEZON III,
MARCK RONALD RIMORIN,
EDWIN LACIERDA,
JEREMY I. GATDULA,
ARBET W. BERNARDO,
MARIA A. JOSE,
RICHARD M. RIVERA,
PITCH MANGONDATO,
LT. GEN. FORTUNATO ABAT (RET),
JOSE T. ARCE JR,
ED BACUNGAN
Intervenors,
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION
Intervenors, respectfully state:
1. The President of the Philippines, in fulfillment of the oath of office set forth in Article VII, Sec. 5 of the Constitution of the Philippines, is solemnly bound to: “faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God." The oath of office stipulates the parameters for presidential action for which every chief executive is accountable, not just to the state and its officials, but to every Filipino citizen.
2. The President of the Philippines, while elected for a fixed term, is always accountable to the public, in whom sovereignty resides. In order to provide an opportunity for exacting accountability, and providing relief to the citizenry if a chief executive proves irresponsible, criminal, or tyrannical, that the Constitution of the Philippines further provides, in Article XI, Sec.2 for the impeachment and trial of the President of the Philippines “for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust, ” and the consequent immediate dismissal from office of any chief executive proven guilty of any or all of these offenses.
3. The Constitution, in allocating the power of the House of Representatives to impeach the chief executive, and for the Senate of the Philippines to try the chief executive, all within the parameters of what the Constitution defines as the offenses and behavior that are of such gravity as to merit the indictment, trial, and potential removal of a President of the Philippines even before the expiration of their term of office, envisions a process that is fundamentally political and not criminal; that is, it does not deprive the President of the Philippines of inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property, but rather, limits the penalty to removal from office.
4. We assert that while the privilege of the House of Representatives, to investigate and approve or reject proposed articles of impeachment, is an absolute privilege, we also assert that the House of Representatives has a fundamental obligation to make any such investigations and determinations as thorough as possible; that it cannot ignore any information or pleadings that would serve to fortify a case against the President of the Philippines; for the determination of culpability, while a political process, is not merely a question of votes for or against any proposed articles, but rather, a process that must come out of a non-partisan effort to evaluate charges, hear the arguments of the proponents and opponents of any such charges, and determine whether they deserve to be articles of impeachment sent to the Senate for trial or not.
5. This basic principle separating an impeachment trial from those held in courts of law, means that the governing principles of impeachment are accountability, the sovereignty of the people, their right to petition government, including their legislature, for the redress of grievances, and the corresponding obligation of officialdom to take into consideration the sentiments and participation of the people, in the determination of a chief executive’s continuing fitness for office. The Constitution, after all, includes the public in the impeachment process, by allowing citizens to file impeachment complaints which legislators may endorse, and in determining the fitness of legislators, in turn, for fitness for office by taking into consideration the behavior of legislators in issues of public interest, such as impeachment.
6. For these reasons, the Intervenors, who are Philippine citizens, of legal age, and may be served with processes in this impeachment proceeding through counsel, assert their clear interest in the matter in question: namely, the impeachment of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who has been charged with committing acts deserving of impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in Senate.
7. As citizens, we, the intervenors possess the constitutional right to petition their duly-elected representatives in the legislature for the redress of our grievances, and to expect the House of Representatives to fulfill its obligation to properly investigate, and deliberate, all allegations of high crimes and misdemeanors on the part of the President of the Philippines,
taking into consideration and account anything that may fortify the process of accountability. The charges leveled against the President of the Philippines, including the charges respondents earnestly submit for the consideration and inclusion of the House of Representatives, are not only an offense to the state, but also to every member of the body politic.
8. This Intervention is therefore meant to fortify the case for impeachment presented before the House of Representatives; it will not unduly delay the proceedings or prejudice the rights of the original parties in this case as the House of Representatives has yet to refer the original Impeachment Complaint filed on 13 October 2008 to the proper Committee. This intervention is fully in keeping with the parameters for accountability provided for in the Constitution, which our country’s basic law also requires all citizens, including our legislators, to investigate and deliberate upon with thoroughness and zeal.
9. The intervenors believe that the President ought to be impeached with regard to the matter of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (“MOA-AD”), which sought to create the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (“BJE”). We assert and submit for the consideration and
endorsement of the House of Representatives, that the agreement represented is a clear transgression by the President of the Philippines against the Constitution. It was a violation of her solemn obligation to faithfully and conscientiously undertake her duties as President of the
Philippines; it was a violation of her solemn duty to, at all times, not only preserve, but defend, the Constitution of the Philippines; it was a violation of her solemn duty to execute the laws of the nation, beginning with the Constituition; and by her recklessness, imprudence, and irresponsibility in pursuing the MOA-AD, she did a grave injustice to the citizenry; it was, in sum, a policy of such deceit and recklessness, as to demonstrate her consecration, not to the service of the nation, but to a policy calculated for personal political advantage, to the detriment of the nation at large.
10. One (1) day after the Impeachment Complaint was filed, or on 14 October 2008, the Supreme Court rendered a Decision in G.R. No. 183591, entitled “The Province of North Cotabato, etc. vs. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, etc., et al.,” and related cases thereto, declaring said MOA-AD unconstitutional.
12. In view of this development subsequent to the filing of the impeachment complaint, intervenors seek redress for a great grievance by asking the House of Representatives to file this Complaint-in-Intervention, with the allegations made in the same, as follows:
13. The declaration of unconstitutionality by the Supreme Court in a 110-page En Banc decision which states in part:
3. The Constitution, in allocating the power of the House of Representatives to impeach the chief executive, and for the Senate of the Philippines to try the chief executive, all within the parameters of what the Constitution defines as the offenses and behavior that are of such gravity as to merit the indictment, trial, and potential removal of a President of the Philippines even before the expiration of their term of office, envisions a process that is fundamentally political and not criminal; that is, it does not deprive the President of the Philippines of inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property, but rather, limits the penalty to removal from office.
4. We assert that while the privilege of the House of Representatives, to investigate and approve or reject proposed articles of impeachment, is an absolute privilege, we also assert that the House of Representatives has a fundamental obligation to make any such investigations and determinations as thorough as possible; that it cannot ignore any information or pleadings that would serve to fortify a case against the President of the Philippines; for the determination of culpability, while a political process, is not merely a question of votes for or against any proposed articles, but rather, a process that must come out of a non-partisan effort to evaluate charges, hear the arguments of the proponents and opponents of any such charges, and determine whether they deserve to be articles of impeachment sent to the Senate for trial or not.
5. This basic principle separating an impeachment trial from those held in courts of law, means that the governing principles of impeachment are accountability, the sovereignty of the people, their right to petition government, including their legislature, for the redress of grievances, and the corresponding obligation of officialdom to take into consideration the sentiments and participation of the people, in the determination of a chief executive’s continuing fitness for office. The Constitution, after all, includes the public in the impeachment process, by allowing citizens to file impeachment complaints which legislators may endorse, and in determining the fitness of legislators, in turn, for fitness for office by taking into consideration the behavior of legislators in issues of public interest, such as impeachment.
6. For these reasons, the Intervenors, who are Philippine citizens, of legal age, and may be served with processes in this impeachment proceeding through counsel, assert their clear interest in the matter in question: namely, the impeachment of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who has been charged with committing acts deserving of impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in Senate.
7. As citizens, we, the intervenors possess the constitutional right to petition their duly-elected representatives in the legislature for the redress of our grievances, and to expect the House of Representatives to fulfill its obligation to properly investigate, and deliberate, all allegations of high crimes and misdemeanors on the part of the President of the Philippines,
taking into consideration and account anything that may fortify the process of accountability. The charges leveled against the President of the Philippines, including the charges respondents earnestly submit for the consideration and inclusion of the House of Representatives, are not only an offense to the state, but also to every member of the body politic.
8. This Intervention is therefore meant to fortify the case for impeachment presented before the House of Representatives; it will not unduly delay the proceedings or prejudice the rights of the original parties in this case as the House of Representatives has yet to refer the original Impeachment Complaint filed on 13 October 2008 to the proper Committee. This intervention is fully in keeping with the parameters for accountability provided for in the Constitution, which our country’s basic law also requires all citizens, including our legislators, to investigate and deliberate upon with thoroughness and zeal.
9. The intervenors believe that the President ought to be impeached with regard to the matter of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (“MOA-AD”), which sought to create the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (“BJE”). We assert and submit for the consideration and
endorsement of the House of Representatives, that the agreement represented is a clear transgression by the President of the Philippines against the Constitution. It was a violation of her solemn obligation to faithfully and conscientiously undertake her duties as President of the
Philippines; it was a violation of her solemn duty to, at all times, not only preserve, but defend, the Constitution of the Philippines; it was a violation of her solemn duty to execute the laws of the nation, beginning with the Constituition; and by her recklessness, imprudence, and irresponsibility in pursuing the MOA-AD, she did a grave injustice to the citizenry; it was, in sum, a policy of such deceit and recklessness, as to demonstrate her consecration, not to the service of the nation, but to a policy calculated for personal political advantage, to the detriment of the nation at large.
10. One (1) day after the Impeachment Complaint was filed, or on 14 October 2008, the Supreme Court rendered a Decision in G.R. No. 183591, entitled “The Province of North Cotabato, etc. vs. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, etc., et al.,” and related cases thereto, declaring said MOA-AD unconstitutional.
11. We submit that that the House of Representatives, in considering the present Impeachment Complaint from within the ambit of the acts of omission and commission that constitute impeachable offenses and crimes, is compelled to take notice of what the Supreme Court itself has declared: that the MOA-AD was unconstitutional. While the Supreme Court has ruled on this, thus resolving the question of whether the document itself was in conformity with our basic law or not, we submit there remains the political question, beyond the ambit of the cases resolved by the high court, of determining whether the President of the Philippines, by implicitly and explicitly endorsing and engaging in the creation and approval of the MOAAD, violated her oath and engaged in behavior so reckless, imprudent, and irresponsible, as to render her unfit for office. As we have said, it is our belief that the President of the Philippines is culpable, accountable, and no longer fit for staying in office, because of her responsibility for the drafting
and approval by the Philippine Government of this document.
and approval by the Philippine Government of this document.
12. In view of this development subsequent to the filing of the impeachment complaint, intervenors seek redress for a great grievance by asking the House of Representatives to file this Complaint-in-Intervention, with the allegations made in the same, as follows:
13. The declaration of unconstitutionality by the Supreme Court in a 110-page En Banc decision which states in part:
In sum, the Presidential Adviser on the
Peace Process committed grave abuse of discretion
when he failed to carry out the pertinent
consultation process, as mandated by EO No. 3,
RA 7160, and RA 8371. The furtive process by
which the MOA-AD was designed and crafted
runs contrary to and in excess of the legal
authority, and amounts to a whimsical, capricious,
oppressive, arbitrary and despotic exercise thereof.
It illustrates a gross evasion of positive duty and a
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined.
* * *
The Court stressed that the MOA-AD cannot
be reconciled with the present Constitution and
laws. Not only its specific provisions but the very
concept underlying them, namely, the associative
relationship envisioned between the GRP and
the BJE (Bangsamoro Juridical Entity), are
unconstitutional, for the concept presupposes
that the associated entity is a state and implies
that the same is on its way to independence, it
said.
The Court noted that inclusion of provisions
in the MOA-AD establishing an associative
relationship between the BJE and the Central
Government is, itself, a violation of the
Memorandum of Instructions from the President
dated March 1, 2001, addressed to the government
peace panel. Moreover, it virtually guarantees that
the necessary amendments to the Constitution and
the laws will eventually be put in place. Neither the
GRP Peace Panel nor the President herself is
authorized to make such a guarantee. Upholding
such an act would amount to authorizing a
usurpation of the constituent powers vested only
in Congress, a Constitutional Convention, or the
people themselves through the process of
initiative, for the only way that the Executive
can ensure the outcome of the amendment
process is through an undue influence or
interference with that process.
The Court added that while the MOA-AD
would not amount to an international agreement or
unilateral declaration binding on the Philippines
under international law, the respondents’ act of
guaranteeing amendments is, by itself, already a
constitutional violation that renders the MOA-AD
fatally defective.
(Emphasis and underscoringsupplied)
A copy of the Supreme Decision in G.R. No. 183591, entitled “The Province of North Cotabato, etc. vs. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, etc., et al.,” is attached as Annex A-Supplement.
Read the rest of it here (in pdf format). It's worth the read.
Peace Process committed grave abuse of discretion
when he failed to carry out the pertinent
consultation process, as mandated by EO No. 3,
RA 7160, and RA 8371. The furtive process by
which the MOA-AD was designed and crafted
runs contrary to and in excess of the legal
authority, and amounts to a whimsical, capricious,
oppressive, arbitrary and despotic exercise thereof.
It illustrates a gross evasion of positive duty and a
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined.
* * *
The Court stressed that the MOA-AD cannot
be reconciled with the present Constitution and
laws. Not only its specific provisions but the very
concept underlying them, namely, the associative
relationship envisioned between the GRP and
the BJE (Bangsamoro Juridical Entity), are
unconstitutional, for the concept presupposes
that the associated entity is a state and implies
that the same is on its way to independence, it
said.
The Court noted that inclusion of provisions
in the MOA-AD establishing an associative
relationship between the BJE and the Central
Government is, itself, a violation of the
Memorandum of Instructions from the President
dated March 1, 2001, addressed to the government
peace panel. Moreover, it virtually guarantees that
the necessary amendments to the Constitution and
the laws will eventually be put in place. Neither the
GRP Peace Panel nor the President herself is
authorized to make such a guarantee. Upholding
such an act would amount to authorizing a
usurpation of the constituent powers vested only
in Congress, a Constitutional Convention, or the
people themselves through the process of
initiative, for the only way that the Executive
can ensure the outcome of the amendment
process is through an undue influence or
interference with that process.
The Court added that while the MOA-AD
would not amount to an international agreement or
unilateral declaration binding on the Philippines
under international law, the respondents’ act of
guaranteeing amendments is, by itself, already a
constitutional violation that renders the MOA-AD
fatally defective.
(Emphasis and underscoringsupplied)
A copy of the Supreme Decision in G.R. No. 183591, entitled “The Province of North Cotabato, etc. vs. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, etc., et al.,” is attached as Annex A-Supplement.
Read the rest of it here (in pdf format). It's worth the read.
