Post by atty36252 on Oct 24, 2007 14:48:05 GMT -5
The Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to “Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts….” (Section 5 (5) of Article VIII).
The Rules of Court were adopted by the Supreme Court in April 8, 1997, where it said that:
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 5(5) of Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court hereby adopts and promulgates the following rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged:
The Constitution states that: “A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen ….” (Section 3 (2) Article XI). The provision indicates that the right to file a complaint for impeachment is a constitutional right granted to all citizens. Since the right to file a complaint for impeachment is a constitutional right, its enforcement and protection comes within the purview of the Rules of Court.
Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules provides that:
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.
A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on “information and belief,” or upon “knowledge, information and belief,” or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.(4a)
The verification found in Roel Pulido’s impeachment complaint states that “I have prepared the same (complaint) and all the allegations therein are true of my own knowledge and belief on the basis of my reading and appreciation of documents and records thereto.” Following the ruling in the case of Clavecilla v. Quitain (G.R 147989), and based on this verification, the complaint may be treated as an unsigned complaint. In Clavecilla, the Supreme Court found a verification based on “knowledge and belief” insufficient when it held that:
“In this case, petitioner’s counsel signed the verification alleging that he had read the petition and the contents thereof are true and correct of his own "knowledge and belief.”
“On this ground alone, the petition should already be dismissed….”
In a case decided this year, the Supreme Court explained the rationale for the requirement of verifications, stating that:
“Verification is not an empty ritual or a meaningless formality. Its import must never be sacrificed in the name of mere expedience or sheer caprice. For what is at stake is the matter of verity attested by the sanctity of an oath to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and not merely speculative” (Park v. Choi G.R. 165496).
The defect in Roel Pulido’s verification is found not only in the phraseology (the use of “knowledge and belief” instead of “personal knowledge”), but in the substance as well, as is discussed below.
The Complaint contains a mere seven (7) allegations.
The first and second allegations refer to the oath of office of the president (1), and her assumption of office (2).
The third allegation refers to the ZTE agreement, which Pulido alleges were “under terms and conditions apparently disadvantageous to the Filipino people.” Pulido, however, does not attach a copy of the contract, nor does he allege that he has read the contract. This allegation, therefore, is clearly not based upon “authentic records”. Neither is it based on personal knowledge, for Pulido was not a party to, nor privy to the contract negotiations.
The fourth allegation purports to a meeting held between Chairman Benjamin Abalos and Jose De Venecia III. Pulido adverts to the affidavit of Jose De Venecia III, which states in part, that:
“9. When I returned from my trip, I found out from Speaker De Venecia that Chairman Abalos was still insisting on a meeting with me. The speaker invited Chairman Abalos and myself to breakfast at the speaker’s home. Given the request of the speaker, I agreed to meet him. At the breakfast, Chairman Abalos expressed his desire to cooperate with AHI in building the NBN network. His proposal was to cover the lower municipalities (4th, 5th and 6th) class), and augment the Orion network of AHI. Chairman suggested that I meet with him and his staff at the Wack Wack Golf and Country Club, around breakfast time. In attendance at the meeting were Messrs. Ruben Reyes, Leo San Miguel, Jimmy Paz, and General Edgar Dula Torre.”
The fourth allegation shows that:
1. Statements were made by Abalos;
2. The statements were heard by Joey de Venecia;
3. Joey de Venecia put what he heard in writing - in an affidavit;
4. Pulido read Joey de Venecia’s affidavit.
Pulido’s purported personal knowledge is in fact hearsay. Joey heard Abalos, and Pulido “heard” (read the affidavit of) Joey. Pulido’s “personal knowledge” is, therefore, hearsay within a hearsay. That falls short of the requirement of the Rules, that the verification be founded on personal knowledge. This “verification”, in fact, is anchored on Pulido’s belief - Pulido believed Joey’s assertions.
The fifth allegation states that:
“In fact, in his testimony before the Senate, Jose De Venecia III claimed under oath that his father, Speaker Jose De Venecia, told him that the Respondent Gloria Macapagal-arroyo, Speaker Jose De Vencecia, Jr. and COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos discussed the respective proposals of of AHI and ZTE during a golf game in China."
There is a footnote to the fifth allegation that states:
‘As reported in “Length and breadth of broadband deal” Philippine Daily Inquire, at page A8, September 27, 2007.’
Pulido admits that the source of his fifth allegation is a news item. Let us break down this allegation then.
1. Speaker De Venecia hears discussions of the NBN deal in a golf game;
2. The Speaker tells his son, Joey what the Speaker heard;
3. Joey tells the Senate, which is heard by a newspaperman;
4. The newspaperman writes about what he heard in a news item;
5. Pulido “hears” (reads the news) the account from the newspaperman.
From the Speaker, to Joey, to the newspaperman, to Pulido; this is hearsay thrice removed from the source. It is too much of a stretch to consider this “personal knowledge”. The Rules are not founded on such elastic logic.
The sixth allegation states that:
“Worse, Secretary Romulo Neri, in his September 26, 2007 testimony before the Senate, admitted under oath that he was offered a P200M bribe by COMELEC Chairman Abalos, and that he reported the matter to the Respondent President. Despite being told of the bribe offer, the Respondent did nothing.”
Pulido’s “personal knowledge” is again founded on the knowledge of another individual (Romulo Neri). Pulido may argue that Neri was under oath, and that the Senate records could be considered “authentic records”. But Pulido did not attach a copy of the Senate transcript; he cannot even allege that he read it. This indicates that Pulido again derived knowledge from newspaper accounts. His knowledge, again, is founded on belief – belief in the newspaper account.
This is again hearsay within hearsay, not personal knowledge. Neri gave an account, which was heard by a newspaperman. Pulido “heard” the newspaperman when Pulido read the news item.
The seventh allegation is in fact legal argumentation, not a factual allegation.
The foregoing shows that Pulido lied when he declared that his Complaint is based on personal knowledge. The substance of his complaint shows, in fact, that he has no personal knowledge of the facts alleged. There is, therefore, no proper verification of the impeachment complaint.
The Rules provide that if a pleading lacks proper verification it “shall be treated as an unsigned pleading”. Since the impeachment complaint filed with the Office of the Speaker is unsigned, it is a mere scrap of paper. Its legal value is no higher than a box of Kleenex or the fish vendor’s tinapa wrapper.
Nothing, therefore, was filed with the Speaker. Nothing was endorsed by Edgar San Luis (who also endorsed based on “knowledge and belief”), and nothing was referred to the Committee on Justice.
This is the problem with cheap goods; they usually do not work. And this impeachment complaint is cheap because it was procured with money, not with a principled grievance. The vaccine, it turns out, is inutile. The inoculation was successful, but the patient may still die.
The Rules of Court were adopted by the Supreme Court in April 8, 1997, where it said that:
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 5(5) of Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court hereby adopts and promulgates the following rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged:
The Constitution states that: “A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen ….” (Section 3 (2) Article XI). The provision indicates that the right to file a complaint for impeachment is a constitutional right granted to all citizens. Since the right to file a complaint for impeachment is a constitutional right, its enforcement and protection comes within the purview of the Rules of Court.
Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules provides that:
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.
A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on “information and belief,” or upon “knowledge, information and belief,” or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.(4a)
The verification found in Roel Pulido’s impeachment complaint states that “I have prepared the same (complaint) and all the allegations therein are true of my own knowledge and belief on the basis of my reading and appreciation of documents and records thereto.” Following the ruling in the case of Clavecilla v. Quitain (G.R 147989), and based on this verification, the complaint may be treated as an unsigned complaint. In Clavecilla, the Supreme Court found a verification based on “knowledge and belief” insufficient when it held that:
“In this case, petitioner’s counsel signed the verification alleging that he had read the petition and the contents thereof are true and correct of his own "knowledge and belief.”
“On this ground alone, the petition should already be dismissed….”
In a case decided this year, the Supreme Court explained the rationale for the requirement of verifications, stating that:
“Verification is not an empty ritual or a meaningless formality. Its import must never be sacrificed in the name of mere expedience or sheer caprice. For what is at stake is the matter of verity attested by the sanctity of an oath to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and not merely speculative” (Park v. Choi G.R. 165496).
The defect in Roel Pulido’s verification is found not only in the phraseology (the use of “knowledge and belief” instead of “personal knowledge”), but in the substance as well, as is discussed below.
The Complaint contains a mere seven (7) allegations.
The first and second allegations refer to the oath of office of the president (1), and her assumption of office (2).
The third allegation refers to the ZTE agreement, which Pulido alleges were “under terms and conditions apparently disadvantageous to the Filipino people.” Pulido, however, does not attach a copy of the contract, nor does he allege that he has read the contract. This allegation, therefore, is clearly not based upon “authentic records”. Neither is it based on personal knowledge, for Pulido was not a party to, nor privy to the contract negotiations.
The fourth allegation purports to a meeting held between Chairman Benjamin Abalos and Jose De Venecia III. Pulido adverts to the affidavit of Jose De Venecia III, which states in part, that:
“9. When I returned from my trip, I found out from Speaker De Venecia that Chairman Abalos was still insisting on a meeting with me. The speaker invited Chairman Abalos and myself to breakfast at the speaker’s home. Given the request of the speaker, I agreed to meet him. At the breakfast, Chairman Abalos expressed his desire to cooperate with AHI in building the NBN network. His proposal was to cover the lower municipalities (4th, 5th and 6th) class), and augment the Orion network of AHI. Chairman suggested that I meet with him and his staff at the Wack Wack Golf and Country Club, around breakfast time. In attendance at the meeting were Messrs. Ruben Reyes, Leo San Miguel, Jimmy Paz, and General Edgar Dula Torre.”
The fourth allegation shows that:
1. Statements were made by Abalos;
2. The statements were heard by Joey de Venecia;
3. Joey de Venecia put what he heard in writing - in an affidavit;
4. Pulido read Joey de Venecia’s affidavit.
Pulido’s purported personal knowledge is in fact hearsay. Joey heard Abalos, and Pulido “heard” (read the affidavit of) Joey. Pulido’s “personal knowledge” is, therefore, hearsay within a hearsay. That falls short of the requirement of the Rules, that the verification be founded on personal knowledge. This “verification”, in fact, is anchored on Pulido’s belief - Pulido believed Joey’s assertions.
The fifth allegation states that:
“In fact, in his testimony before the Senate, Jose De Venecia III claimed under oath that his father, Speaker Jose De Venecia, told him that the Respondent Gloria Macapagal-arroyo, Speaker Jose De Vencecia, Jr. and COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos discussed the respective proposals of of AHI and ZTE during a golf game in China."
There is a footnote to the fifth allegation that states:
‘As reported in “Length and breadth of broadband deal” Philippine Daily Inquire, at page A8, September 27, 2007.’
Pulido admits that the source of his fifth allegation is a news item. Let us break down this allegation then.
1. Speaker De Venecia hears discussions of the NBN deal in a golf game;
2. The Speaker tells his son, Joey what the Speaker heard;
3. Joey tells the Senate, which is heard by a newspaperman;
4. The newspaperman writes about what he heard in a news item;
5. Pulido “hears” (reads the news) the account from the newspaperman.
From the Speaker, to Joey, to the newspaperman, to Pulido; this is hearsay thrice removed from the source. It is too much of a stretch to consider this “personal knowledge”. The Rules are not founded on such elastic logic.
The sixth allegation states that:
“Worse, Secretary Romulo Neri, in his September 26, 2007 testimony before the Senate, admitted under oath that he was offered a P200M bribe by COMELEC Chairman Abalos, and that he reported the matter to the Respondent President. Despite being told of the bribe offer, the Respondent did nothing.”
Pulido’s “personal knowledge” is again founded on the knowledge of another individual (Romulo Neri). Pulido may argue that Neri was under oath, and that the Senate records could be considered “authentic records”. But Pulido did not attach a copy of the Senate transcript; he cannot even allege that he read it. This indicates that Pulido again derived knowledge from newspaper accounts. His knowledge, again, is founded on belief – belief in the newspaper account.
This is again hearsay within hearsay, not personal knowledge. Neri gave an account, which was heard by a newspaperman. Pulido “heard” the newspaperman when Pulido read the news item.
The seventh allegation is in fact legal argumentation, not a factual allegation.
The foregoing shows that Pulido lied when he declared that his Complaint is based on personal knowledge. The substance of his complaint shows, in fact, that he has no personal knowledge of the facts alleged. There is, therefore, no proper verification of the impeachment complaint.
The Rules provide that if a pleading lacks proper verification it “shall be treated as an unsigned pleading”. Since the impeachment complaint filed with the Office of the Speaker is unsigned, it is a mere scrap of paper. Its legal value is no higher than a box of Kleenex or the fish vendor’s tinapa wrapper.
Nothing, therefore, was filed with the Speaker. Nothing was endorsed by Edgar San Luis (who also endorsed based on “knowledge and belief”), and nothing was referred to the Committee on Justice.
This is the problem with cheap goods; they usually do not work. And this impeachment complaint is cheap because it was procured with money, not with a principled grievance. The vaccine, it turns out, is inutile. The inoculation was successful, but the patient may still die.