Post by atty36252 on Oct 17, 2007 20:25:07 GMT -5
On November 11, 1985, months before people massed in EDSA, Saturnina Galman, mother of Rolando Galman, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition and prayed for a temporary restraining order (GR 72670). She was joined in the petition by twenty-nine other individuals, including former Supreme Court justices JBL Reyes and Cecilia Muñoz Palma. The petition alleged that:
1. “The “Tanodbayan (now Ombudsman) and Sandiganbayan committed serious irregularities constituting mistrial and resulting in miscarriage of justice….”
2. “The Tanodbayan did not represent the interest of the people when he failed to exert genuine and earnest efforts to present vital testimonial and documentary evidence for the prosecution.”
3. “The Sandiganbayan justices were biased, prejudiced and partial in favor of the accused, Fabian Ver, Prospero Olivas, et al.; and that their acts "clouded with the gravest doubts the sincerity of government to find out the truth about the Aquino assassination."
Petitioners prayed for the issuance of a TRO restraining the respondent Sandiganbayan from rendering a decision on the merits in the pending criminal cases. They further prayed that judgment be rendered declaring a mistrial and nullifying the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan, and ordering a re-trial before an impartial tribunal by an unbiased prosecutor.
The TRO was granted on November 18, 1985, but on November 28, 1985, the Supreme Court reversed itself, lifted the TRO and dismissed the petition. A motion for reconsideration was filed on November 29, 1985, which was denied on February 4, 1986, by a Supreme Court composed mostly of Marcos appointees. Dissenting opinions were filed, by Justice Claudio Teeehankee, and Justice Vicente Abad Santos.
A second motion for reconsideration was filed on March 20, 1986, before a newly composed Supreme Court. Comments were required from the Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan.
Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera, in his comment of April 14, 1986 affirmed the allegations in the second motion for reconsideration and revealed that the Sandiganbayan Justices and Tanodbayan prosecutors were ordered by Marcos to whitewash the Aquino-Galman murder case.
Among the facts affirmed by Herrera were the following:
“At 6:00 p.m. of January 10, 1986 Marcos summoned to Malacañang Justice Bernardo Fernandez (the Tanodbayan), Sandiganbayan Justice Manuel Pamaran (the Presiding Justice) and and the members of the Panel. Also present at the meeting were Justice Manuel Lazaro (the Coordinator) and Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, who left earlier, came back and left again. The former President had a copy of the panel's signed resolution (charging all accused as principals), evidently furnished him in advance, and with prepared notes on the contents thereof.”
“The former President more or less conceded that for political and legal reasons all the respondents should be charged in court, Politically, as it will become evident that the government was serious in pursuing the case towards its logical conclusion, and thereby ease public demonstrations; on the other hand, legally, it was perceived that after (not IF) they are acquitted, double jeopardy would inure.”
“Towards the end of the two-hour meeting and after the script had been tacitly mapped out, the former President uttered: "Mag moro-moro na lang kayo."
“The parting words of the former President were: "Thank you for your cooperation. I know how to reciprocate."
As expected, when the second motion for reconsideration was being heard, the respondents Fabian Ver, Prospero Olivas et al all set up the defense of double jeopardy. They maintained that the Sandiganbayan had already decided the case, acquitting them, and to declare a mistrial and proceed to a new trial would violate the Constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy.
To aid it in resolving the second motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court appointed a fact-finding commission comprised of retired Supreme Court Justice Conrado Vasquez, and retired Court of Appeals justices Milagros German and Eduardo Caguioa.
The Court adopted the findings of the Fact-Finding Commission that vital evidence was suppressed, and witnesses were harassed. The Commission found: “That President Marcos had wanted all of the twenty-six accused to be acquitted may not be denied. The disposal of the case in said manner is an integral part of the scenario which was cleverly designed to accomplish two principal objectives, seemingly conflicting in themselves, but favorable both to the administration and to the accused; to wit, [1] the satisfaction of the public clamor for the suspected killers of Senator Aquino to be charged in court, and [2] the foreclosure of any possibility that they may again be prosecuted for the same offense in the event that President Marcos shall no longer be in power.”
The Commission also found that “"In rendering its decision the Sandiganbayan overdid itself in favoring the presidential directive. Its bias and partiality in favor of the accused was glaringly obvious. The evidence presented by the prosecution was totally ignored and disregarded. ...”
The Court further found that: “The fact of the secret Malacañang conference of January 10, 1985 at which the authoritarian President discussed with the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan and the entire prosecution panel the matter of the imminent filing of the criminal charges against all the twenty-six accused is not denied. It is without precedent. This was illegal under our penal laws. This illegality vitiated from the very beginning, all proceedings in the Sandiganbayan court headed by the very Presiding Justice who attended.
"The very acts of being summoned to Malacañang and their ready acquiescence thereto under the circumstances then obtaining, are in themselves pressure dramatized and exemplified. ... Verily, it can be said that any avowal of independent action or resistance to presidential pressure became illusory from the very moment they stepped inside Malacanang Palace on January 10, 1985."
The Supreme Court held that for double jeopardy to inure, there must be a first jeopardy. There was none in that case, because as the Court observed, “the sham trial was but a mock trial where the authoritarian president ordered respondents Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan to rig the trial and closely monitored the entire proceedings to assure the pre-determined final outcome of acquittal….” The Court then held that “A dictated, coerced and scripted verdict of acquittal such as that in the case at bar is a void judgment. In legal contemplation, it is no judgment at all. It neither binds nor bars anyone.”
The Galman case instructs the bar that a sham proceeding produces no legal effect; it is as if no proceeding occurred at all. This is applicable to the impeachment complaint before the House, because the Supreme Court in the Francisco case held that the preliminary investigation in the House is a “proceeding.” Adopting the opinion of Father Bernas, the Supreme Court held that there is one proceeding in the House, and when the Articles of Impeachment are sent to the Senate, another proceeding commences.
The “proceeding” commenced by the Pulido complaint is a sham as borne out by the following facts:
1. The Speaker revealed to the Press that the President held a meeting with 190 congressmen about the impeachment. These are the very individuals who will determine whether or not to draft the Articles of Impeachment and send it to the Senate – the very people who may or may not be the President’s accusers.
Cash gifts, which “are standard”, were given, and the release of pork barrel funds was announced. The timing of these acts indicates an attempt to influence the congressmen.
In stark contrast, President Marcos, in the Galman case, did not distribute “gifts”. He only suggested that: “I know how to reciprocate.” Yet the fact-finding commission of the Supreme Court was moved to find that: “The very acts of being summoned to Malacañang and their ready acquiescence thereto under the circumstances then obtaining, are in themselves pressure dramatized and exemplified. ... “
Even the much-vilified Richard Milhous Nixon had the decency not to speak to his Republican party-mates pending his impeachment. The same is true for William Jefferson Clinton. No meeting with congressmen was held either, by Joseph Ejercito Estrada.
Ironically, the crass attempt to influence the congressmen came from a member of the “civil society” – an alumna of an elite school; not hoi polloi, like Richard Milhous Nixon (born to poverty in Yorba Linda, California).
2. Time and again the congressmen party-mates of this woman have declared that “impeachment is a numbers game” – that the impeachment will fail because the opposition does not have the votes. This is a clear indication that the congressmen have no intention of listening to the evidence adduced; that they have already decided in favor of a party-mate, and against the Filipino people.
Wasn’t it a Filipino who said “My loyalty to my party ends where my loyalty to my country begins?” But then again, it was also a Filipino who said “What are we in power for?”
The Supreme Court, in the Galman case, held that a sham trial is void because the people were denied due process. Due process was denied when “The evidence presented by the prosecution was totally ignored and disregarded. ...”
“Where the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case its right to due process is thereby violated. The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted of their jurisdiction.”
The above precept applies in this case, and the denial of due process divests the House of jurisdiction over the Pulido complaint. There is, therefore, no bar to the filing of a genuine complaint seeking to impeach this woman.
On what ground may she be impeached? The following should provide basis:
1. The attempt to influence the congressmen violates the people’s right to due process, because the congressmen were “persuaded” to dismiss the Pulido complaint before receiving evidence. A denial of due process is the highest transgression of the Constitution, along with denial of equal protection. Culpable violation of the Constitution is a ground for impeachment.
The very act of meeting with the congressmen is, in fact, a betrayal of the public trust; for when the accused secretly meets with the prosecutors, the people lose all trust in the administration of justice. Betrayal of public trust is a ground for impeachment.
2. The distribution of gifts is also a culpable violation of the Constitution, specifically Section 29 of Article VI which provides that: “No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.”
3. The distribution of gifts is also bribery, which is another basis for impeachment.
Poetic justice is defined as a literary device in which virtue is ultimately rewarded, or vice ultimately punished, by an ironic twist of fate, intimately related to the character’s own conduct (wikipedia). It seems that life has imitated art; for the very acts performed to ensure the dismissal of the Roel Pulido complaint furnish the basis for a true impeachment.
The opposition should now prepare a solid impeachment complaint, get the requisite eighty signatures, and file it directly with the Senate. Let the minions carry the burden of proving to the Supreme Court that the Senate gravely abused its discretion in accepting the only genuine impeachment complaint.
It is said that revenge is sweetest when enabled by the miscreant’s own folly. She has sown the wind, now she will reap the whirlwind.
1. “The “Tanodbayan (now Ombudsman) and Sandiganbayan committed serious irregularities constituting mistrial and resulting in miscarriage of justice….”
2. “The Tanodbayan did not represent the interest of the people when he failed to exert genuine and earnest efforts to present vital testimonial and documentary evidence for the prosecution.”
3. “The Sandiganbayan justices were biased, prejudiced and partial in favor of the accused, Fabian Ver, Prospero Olivas, et al.; and that their acts "clouded with the gravest doubts the sincerity of government to find out the truth about the Aquino assassination."
Petitioners prayed for the issuance of a TRO restraining the respondent Sandiganbayan from rendering a decision on the merits in the pending criminal cases. They further prayed that judgment be rendered declaring a mistrial and nullifying the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan, and ordering a re-trial before an impartial tribunal by an unbiased prosecutor.
The TRO was granted on November 18, 1985, but on November 28, 1985, the Supreme Court reversed itself, lifted the TRO and dismissed the petition. A motion for reconsideration was filed on November 29, 1985, which was denied on February 4, 1986, by a Supreme Court composed mostly of Marcos appointees. Dissenting opinions were filed, by Justice Claudio Teeehankee, and Justice Vicente Abad Santos.
A second motion for reconsideration was filed on March 20, 1986, before a newly composed Supreme Court. Comments were required from the Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan.
Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera, in his comment of April 14, 1986 affirmed the allegations in the second motion for reconsideration and revealed that the Sandiganbayan Justices and Tanodbayan prosecutors were ordered by Marcos to whitewash the Aquino-Galman murder case.
Among the facts affirmed by Herrera were the following:
“At 6:00 p.m. of January 10, 1986 Marcos summoned to Malacañang Justice Bernardo Fernandez (the Tanodbayan), Sandiganbayan Justice Manuel Pamaran (the Presiding Justice) and and the members of the Panel. Also present at the meeting were Justice Manuel Lazaro (the Coordinator) and Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, who left earlier, came back and left again. The former President had a copy of the panel's signed resolution (charging all accused as principals), evidently furnished him in advance, and with prepared notes on the contents thereof.”
“The former President more or less conceded that for political and legal reasons all the respondents should be charged in court, Politically, as it will become evident that the government was serious in pursuing the case towards its logical conclusion, and thereby ease public demonstrations; on the other hand, legally, it was perceived that after (not IF) they are acquitted, double jeopardy would inure.”
“Towards the end of the two-hour meeting and after the script had been tacitly mapped out, the former President uttered: "Mag moro-moro na lang kayo."
“The parting words of the former President were: "Thank you for your cooperation. I know how to reciprocate."
As expected, when the second motion for reconsideration was being heard, the respondents Fabian Ver, Prospero Olivas et al all set up the defense of double jeopardy. They maintained that the Sandiganbayan had already decided the case, acquitting them, and to declare a mistrial and proceed to a new trial would violate the Constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy.
To aid it in resolving the second motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court appointed a fact-finding commission comprised of retired Supreme Court Justice Conrado Vasquez, and retired Court of Appeals justices Milagros German and Eduardo Caguioa.
The Court adopted the findings of the Fact-Finding Commission that vital evidence was suppressed, and witnesses were harassed. The Commission found: “That President Marcos had wanted all of the twenty-six accused to be acquitted may not be denied. The disposal of the case in said manner is an integral part of the scenario which was cleverly designed to accomplish two principal objectives, seemingly conflicting in themselves, but favorable both to the administration and to the accused; to wit, [1] the satisfaction of the public clamor for the suspected killers of Senator Aquino to be charged in court, and [2] the foreclosure of any possibility that they may again be prosecuted for the same offense in the event that President Marcos shall no longer be in power.”
The Commission also found that “"In rendering its decision the Sandiganbayan overdid itself in favoring the presidential directive. Its bias and partiality in favor of the accused was glaringly obvious. The evidence presented by the prosecution was totally ignored and disregarded. ...”
The Court further found that: “The fact of the secret Malacañang conference of January 10, 1985 at which the authoritarian President discussed with the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan and the entire prosecution panel the matter of the imminent filing of the criminal charges against all the twenty-six accused is not denied. It is without precedent. This was illegal under our penal laws. This illegality vitiated from the very beginning, all proceedings in the Sandiganbayan court headed by the very Presiding Justice who attended.
"The very acts of being summoned to Malacañang and their ready acquiescence thereto under the circumstances then obtaining, are in themselves pressure dramatized and exemplified. ... Verily, it can be said that any avowal of independent action or resistance to presidential pressure became illusory from the very moment they stepped inside Malacanang Palace on January 10, 1985."
The Supreme Court held that for double jeopardy to inure, there must be a first jeopardy. There was none in that case, because as the Court observed, “the sham trial was but a mock trial where the authoritarian president ordered respondents Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan to rig the trial and closely monitored the entire proceedings to assure the pre-determined final outcome of acquittal….” The Court then held that “A dictated, coerced and scripted verdict of acquittal such as that in the case at bar is a void judgment. In legal contemplation, it is no judgment at all. It neither binds nor bars anyone.”
The Galman case instructs the bar that a sham proceeding produces no legal effect; it is as if no proceeding occurred at all. This is applicable to the impeachment complaint before the House, because the Supreme Court in the Francisco case held that the preliminary investigation in the House is a “proceeding.” Adopting the opinion of Father Bernas, the Supreme Court held that there is one proceeding in the House, and when the Articles of Impeachment are sent to the Senate, another proceeding commences.
The “proceeding” commenced by the Pulido complaint is a sham as borne out by the following facts:
1. The Speaker revealed to the Press that the President held a meeting with 190 congressmen about the impeachment. These are the very individuals who will determine whether or not to draft the Articles of Impeachment and send it to the Senate – the very people who may or may not be the President’s accusers.
Cash gifts, which “are standard”, were given, and the release of pork barrel funds was announced. The timing of these acts indicates an attempt to influence the congressmen.
In stark contrast, President Marcos, in the Galman case, did not distribute “gifts”. He only suggested that: “I know how to reciprocate.” Yet the fact-finding commission of the Supreme Court was moved to find that: “The very acts of being summoned to Malacañang and their ready acquiescence thereto under the circumstances then obtaining, are in themselves pressure dramatized and exemplified. ... “
Even the much-vilified Richard Milhous Nixon had the decency not to speak to his Republican party-mates pending his impeachment. The same is true for William Jefferson Clinton. No meeting with congressmen was held either, by Joseph Ejercito Estrada.
Ironically, the crass attempt to influence the congressmen came from a member of the “civil society” – an alumna of an elite school; not hoi polloi, like Richard Milhous Nixon (born to poverty in Yorba Linda, California).
2. Time and again the congressmen party-mates of this woman have declared that “impeachment is a numbers game” – that the impeachment will fail because the opposition does not have the votes. This is a clear indication that the congressmen have no intention of listening to the evidence adduced; that they have already decided in favor of a party-mate, and against the Filipino people.
Wasn’t it a Filipino who said “My loyalty to my party ends where my loyalty to my country begins?” But then again, it was also a Filipino who said “What are we in power for?”
The Supreme Court, in the Galman case, held that a sham trial is void because the people were denied due process. Due process was denied when “The evidence presented by the prosecution was totally ignored and disregarded. ...”
“Where the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case its right to due process is thereby violated. The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted of their jurisdiction.”
The above precept applies in this case, and the denial of due process divests the House of jurisdiction over the Pulido complaint. There is, therefore, no bar to the filing of a genuine complaint seeking to impeach this woman.
On what ground may she be impeached? The following should provide basis:
1. The attempt to influence the congressmen violates the people’s right to due process, because the congressmen were “persuaded” to dismiss the Pulido complaint before receiving evidence. A denial of due process is the highest transgression of the Constitution, along with denial of equal protection. Culpable violation of the Constitution is a ground for impeachment.
The very act of meeting with the congressmen is, in fact, a betrayal of the public trust; for when the accused secretly meets with the prosecutors, the people lose all trust in the administration of justice. Betrayal of public trust is a ground for impeachment.
2. The distribution of gifts is also a culpable violation of the Constitution, specifically Section 29 of Article VI which provides that: “No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.”
3. The distribution of gifts is also bribery, which is another basis for impeachment.
Poetic justice is defined as a literary device in which virtue is ultimately rewarded, or vice ultimately punished, by an ironic twist of fate, intimately related to the character’s own conduct (wikipedia). It seems that life has imitated art; for the very acts performed to ensure the dismissal of the Roel Pulido complaint furnish the basis for a true impeachment.
The opposition should now prepare a solid impeachment complaint, get the requisite eighty signatures, and file it directly with the Senate. Let the minions carry the burden of proving to the Supreme Court that the Senate gravely abused its discretion in accepting the only genuine impeachment complaint.
It is said that revenge is sweetest when enabled by the miscreant’s own folly. She has sown the wind, now she will reap the whirlwind.