Post by atty36252 on Oct 8, 2007 7:21:52 GMT -5
It has been opined that the resignation of Chairman Abalos has rendered moot, the complaint for impeachment filed by Vice-Governor Rolex Suplico. The Constitution and precedent, however, do not support this contention.
Section (7) of Article XI of the Constitution provides that:
“Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.”
There are, therefore, two objectives of an impeachment – the removal of the public official, and the disqualification of the official from holding any office under the Republic of the Philippines. Since the Senate is the impeachment court, it may impose both penalties, or only one (removal), at its discretion.
The resignation of Chairman Abalos, indeed, renders his removal moot. But the determination of his culpability may still be made, in order to ascertain whether or not he still is qualified to hold office under the Republic of the Philippines; for he may run for office, or be appointed ambassador, like Hilario Davide. As ambassador, he would be the face of the Philippines to the international community. To merit such an honor, therefore, he must be qualified.
It is not enough that Abalos disavows the intent to run for office, or accept an appointed post. What is being determined is the prospective official’s qualification, and not his intent. And if history is any indication, the intent not to seek office has been honored more in the breach than in the observance. The acting president, herself, had declared her decision not run for president, and then reneged on that declaration; and further added insult to injury by cheating.
Is there precedent for the acquisition of jurisdiction despite the resignation of the official?
Although there is none in the Philippines, the experience of the United States should serve as guidance, for its Constitution is the source of the above provision. We specifically refer here, to the impeachment of William W. Belknap, Secretary of War (There actually was a portfolio purely for the conduct of war. This should have been Donald Rumsfeld’s title).
(Quoted from www.senate.gov - US Senate website. Italicized comments supplied.)
“An impeachment trial for a secretary of war occupied much of the Senate’s time during May 1876.
“At issue was the behavior of William Belknap, war secretary in the administration of President Ulysses Grant. A former Iowa state legislator and Civil War general, Belknap had held his cabinet post for nearly eight years. In the rollicking era that Mark Twain dubbed the Gilded Age, Belknap was famous for his extravagant Washington parties and his elegantly attired first and second wives. Many questioned how he managed such a grand life style on his $8,000 government salary.” (Talk about lifestyle check.)
“By early 1876, answers began to surface. A House of Representatives’ committee uncovered evidence supporting a pattern of corruption blatant even by the standards of the scandal-tarnished Grant administration.”
“The trail of evidence extended back to 1870. In that year, Belknap’s luxury-loving first wife assisted a wheeler-dealer named Caleb Marsh by getting her husband to select one of Marsh’s associates to operate the lucrative military trading post at Fort Sill in Indian territory. Marsh’s promise of generous kick-backs prompted Secretary Belknap to make the appointment. Over the next five years, the associate funneled thousands of dollars to Marsh, who provided Belknap regular quarterly payments totaling over $20,000.”
“On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.”
“This failed to stop the House. Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment, charging Belknap with “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain. (Sounds familiar?)”
(End of quote)
The articles of impeachment (courtesy of books.google.com) concluded with the following statements:
“And the House of Representatives further say that while its committee was considering and preparing its said report to the House of Representatives recommending the impeachment of the said William W. Belknap for the matters and things set forth in the said articles, the said William W. Belknap, with full knowledge thereof, resigned his position as such officer on the said 2d day of March A.D. 1876, with intent to evade the impeachment proceedings against him. And the House of Representatives resolved to impeach the said William W. Belknap for said matters in said articles set forth on the said 2d day of March A.D. 1876.”
“And the House of Representatives say that by the Constitution of the United States the House of Representatives had power to prefer said articles of impeachment against the said William W. Belknap, and that the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment has full power to try the same.”
The Senate ruled that it had jurisdiction, as follows:
“June 1 – the President pro tempore of the Senate announce the judgment of the body as follows:
“On the question of jurisdiction raised by the pleadings in this trial, it is ordered by the Senate sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment preferred by the House of Representatives against William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, that the demurrer of said William W. Belknap to the replication of the House of Representatives to the plea to the jurisdiction filed by said Belknap, be, and the same, hereby, is overruled; and it being the opinion of the Senate that said plea is insufficient in law and that said articles of impeachment are sufficient in law, it is therefore further ordered and adjudged that said plea be, and the same hereby is, ordered overruled and held for naught.”
“The Secretary will make the proper entry upon the journal.”
“Mr. Whyte offered the following:
Ordered, That W. W. Belknap is hereby ordered to plead further or answer the articles of impeachment within ten days from this date.”
In the next post, we will discuss why the author believes that the Francisco decision needs to be revisited by our Supreme Court.
Section (7) of Article XI of the Constitution provides that:
“Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.”
There are, therefore, two objectives of an impeachment – the removal of the public official, and the disqualification of the official from holding any office under the Republic of the Philippines. Since the Senate is the impeachment court, it may impose both penalties, or only one (removal), at its discretion.
The resignation of Chairman Abalos, indeed, renders his removal moot. But the determination of his culpability may still be made, in order to ascertain whether or not he still is qualified to hold office under the Republic of the Philippines; for he may run for office, or be appointed ambassador, like Hilario Davide. As ambassador, he would be the face of the Philippines to the international community. To merit such an honor, therefore, he must be qualified.
It is not enough that Abalos disavows the intent to run for office, or accept an appointed post. What is being determined is the prospective official’s qualification, and not his intent. And if history is any indication, the intent not to seek office has been honored more in the breach than in the observance. The acting president, herself, had declared her decision not run for president, and then reneged on that declaration; and further added insult to injury by cheating.
Is there precedent for the acquisition of jurisdiction despite the resignation of the official?
Although there is none in the Philippines, the experience of the United States should serve as guidance, for its Constitution is the source of the above provision. We specifically refer here, to the impeachment of William W. Belknap, Secretary of War (There actually was a portfolio purely for the conduct of war. This should have been Donald Rumsfeld’s title).
(Quoted from www.senate.gov - US Senate website. Italicized comments supplied.)
“An impeachment trial for a secretary of war occupied much of the Senate’s time during May 1876.
“At issue was the behavior of William Belknap, war secretary in the administration of President Ulysses Grant. A former Iowa state legislator and Civil War general, Belknap had held his cabinet post for nearly eight years. In the rollicking era that Mark Twain dubbed the Gilded Age, Belknap was famous for his extravagant Washington parties and his elegantly attired first and second wives. Many questioned how he managed such a grand life style on his $8,000 government salary.” (Talk about lifestyle check.)
“By early 1876, answers began to surface. A House of Representatives’ committee uncovered evidence supporting a pattern of corruption blatant even by the standards of the scandal-tarnished Grant administration.”
“The trail of evidence extended back to 1870. In that year, Belknap’s luxury-loving first wife assisted a wheeler-dealer named Caleb Marsh by getting her husband to select one of Marsh’s associates to operate the lucrative military trading post at Fort Sill in Indian territory. Marsh’s promise of generous kick-backs prompted Secretary Belknap to make the appointment. Over the next five years, the associate funneled thousands of dollars to Marsh, who provided Belknap regular quarterly payments totaling over $20,000.”
“On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.”
“This failed to stop the House. Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment, charging Belknap with “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain. (Sounds familiar?)”
(End of quote)
The articles of impeachment (courtesy of books.google.com) concluded with the following statements:
“And the House of Representatives further say that while its committee was considering and preparing its said report to the House of Representatives recommending the impeachment of the said William W. Belknap for the matters and things set forth in the said articles, the said William W. Belknap, with full knowledge thereof, resigned his position as such officer on the said 2d day of March A.D. 1876, with intent to evade the impeachment proceedings against him. And the House of Representatives resolved to impeach the said William W. Belknap for said matters in said articles set forth on the said 2d day of March A.D. 1876.”
“And the House of Representatives say that by the Constitution of the United States the House of Representatives had power to prefer said articles of impeachment against the said William W. Belknap, and that the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment has full power to try the same.”
The Senate ruled that it had jurisdiction, as follows:
“June 1 – the President pro tempore of the Senate announce the judgment of the body as follows:
“On the question of jurisdiction raised by the pleadings in this trial, it is ordered by the Senate sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment preferred by the House of Representatives against William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, that the demurrer of said William W. Belknap to the replication of the House of Representatives to the plea to the jurisdiction filed by said Belknap, be, and the same, hereby, is overruled; and it being the opinion of the Senate that said plea is insufficient in law and that said articles of impeachment are sufficient in law, it is therefore further ordered and adjudged that said plea be, and the same hereby is, ordered overruled and held for naught.”
“The Secretary will make the proper entry upon the journal.”
“Mr. Whyte offered the following:
Ordered, That W. W. Belknap is hereby ordered to plead further or answer the articles of impeachment within ten days from this date.”
In the next post, we will discuss why the author believes that the Francisco decision needs to be revisited by our Supreme Court.