"My friend Gadon says that the periods set for processes like impeachment can be easily frustrated."
Many might not be aware of this, but Congress might have elevated itself to the status making it at par with the gods as it is the only body on earth which could effect a time freeze.
Early this week, Ben Rosario of the Manila Bulletin asked Deputy Speaker and Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez about the possibility of Speaker Lord Allan Velasco violating the Constitution when he failed to include the impeachment complaint filed by Ed Cordevilla against Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen within 10 session days after its filing.
Under the impeachment rules provided in the 1987 Constitution, the Speaker is required to put the complaint in the Order of Business ten session days after Cordevilla, secretary general of the Filipino League of Advocates for Good Government, filed the complaint against Leonen last December 7.
However, Rodriguez, according to Rosario, avers the regulation ten days given to Velasco to put the impeachment complaint in the OB has not been violated as “many of their previous sessions were only suspended and not adjourned,” meaning a session started last month, could still be considered to be active even after month as long as it is only suspended, or counted to be only as one session day even if it has lasted more than 24 hours, the number of hours in a day.
Thus, a suspended session in Congress could qualify as an entry to the Guinness Book of World Record for being the longest day. And only Congress can break their record anytime they wish.
But this of course, is contested by lawyer Larry Gadon, who assisted Cordevilla in the filing of the impeachment complaint.
According to Gadon, Congress’ apparent inaction on the impeachment complaint against Leonen indicates “the Speaker appears to be leaning towards favoring” the SC Associate Justice.
Gadon explains that under the House Rules of Procedure, an impeachment complaint duly endorsed by a member of congress must be acted upon within 10 days from its filing and referred to the appropriate committee within three days thereafter.
“Obviously the 10 days and 3 days period are supposed to be calendar days and not session days as complicatedly interpreted by Congressman Rufus Rodriguez (as in) in all government offices and all regulatory agencies, commissions, all levels and branches of the judiciary, periods mean calendar days,” says Gadon.
“It is absurd to interpret periods in the House as meaning session days and that a set of continuous session days are lumped and counted as one day and that suspensions of sessions cannot alter the counting,” he adds.
If it is so, Gadon says, then the periods set for processes like impeachment can be easily frustrated.
“I’m certain that the framers of the Constitution did not have that kind of intent of the law,” the lawyer says.
Further, Gadon stresses that “pending matters should have precedence over new business more so that the impeachment is an important business.”
“The process of impeachment is laid down in the Constitution hence showing its great importance,” he points out.
Going by Rodriguez’s interpretation, Gadon says, if a session starts Monday and each day is suspended and called the following day and continues up to Friday, then the Monday to Friday with intervals of daily suspension is counted only as one day.
“What kind of interpretation of period is that?” Gadon asks.
A time freeze maybe. Or a state of suspended animation.
Gadon insists each day the House is in session should be considered as one calendar day.
Actually, this is not the first time Congress had used this line of reasoning to sit down on an impeachment complaint against an SC justice.
In 2012, Congress “violated” the required 60 session days to resolve impeachment complaint against then SC Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo, and justified its action by resorting to the “session suspension alibi.
This was admitted by no less than the Majority Leader that time, Mandaluyong Rep. Neptali “Boyet” Gonzales.
According to Gonzales, suspending sessions instead of adjourning them was part of the strategy to delay the expiration of the prescribed 60-session day period required of the Lower Chamber to resolve an impeachment case.
In del Castillo’s case, it spent more than 84 session days before resolving the complaint, if suspended sessions will not be counted as a continuing session.
I think it is high time that this issue is settled once and for all by the final interpreter of the law, the Supreme Court itself, as I believe this has already gained the status of a justiciable controversy.
And maybe my friend Atty. Larry Gadon can again initiate the move.