By ALAN F. PAGUIA
Former Professor of Law, Ateneo Law School
THE 1987 Constitution requires a complaint for impeachment to be VERIFIED (Sec. 3, sub pars. 2 and 4, ART. XI).
1. On August 3, 2010, the House of Representatives adopted its Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Proceedings. Rule IV provides for verification of complaint/resolution by one-third (1/3) of the members. It specifically provides that verification shall state: “that the allegations therein are true of our own knowledge and belief on the basis of our reading and appreciation of documents and other records pertinent thereto.” Hence, the complaint for impeachment against the Chief Justice is worded accordingly and is, therefore, consistent with the internal rules promulgated by the House.
2. The foregoing facts necessarily raise the JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE of:
WHETHER THE VERIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT IS CONSISTENT WITH DUE PROCESS UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION?
3. The proper answer appears to be in the NEGATIVE.
First.- Rule 7 of the Rules of Court expressly provides:
SEC. 4. Verification.—Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit.
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.
Second.- IS VERIFICATION OF A COMPLAINT FOR IMPEACHMENT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BY LAW?
YES. It is specifically required by the Constitution (Sec. 3, sub pars. 2 and 4, ART. XI).
Third.- ARE THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT CLAIMED BY THE SIGNATORIES THERETO TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT: A) OF THEIR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, OR B) BASED ON AUTHENTIC RECORDS?
NO. According to the signatories, the allegations are true of their “own knowledge and belief on the basis of (their) reading and appreciation of documents and other records pertinent thereto.”
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, authentic means “genuine; true; real; pure; reliable; trustworthy; having the character and authority of an original; duly vested with all necessary formalities and legally attested. Competent, credible, and reliable as evidence.” Thus, pertinent records are not necessarily authentic. Knowledge based on pertinent records is NOT THE SAME as knowledge based on authentic records. Pertinent records may refer to INCOMPETENT, INCREDIBLE, and UNRELIABLE evidence. Upon the other hand, authentic records always refer to COMPETENT, CREDIBLE, and RELIABLE evidence.
Fourth.- DOES THE VERIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT COMPLY WITH RULE 7 OF THE RULES OF COURT?
NO. The allegations are NOT BASED on personal knowledge or authentic records. Therefore, the complaint lacks proper verification.
Fifth.- WHAT IS THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THE SUBJECT COMPLAINT WHICH LACKS A PROPER VERIFICATION?
The complaint shall be treated as an unsigned pleading (Sec. 4, last par., Rule 7, Rules of Court)
Sixth.- WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF AN UNSIGNED PLEADING?
It produces no legal effect (Sec. 3, Rule 7, Rules of Court). However, the court may in its discretion allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to a mere inadvertence and not intended for delay. But, in the case at bar, the “unsigned” complaint was the result of a DELIBERATE ACT. The signatories actually and consciously copied verbatim the provision of the House Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Proceedings. Thus, it cannot be properly said to be the result of a mere inadvertence.
Seventh.- DOES CONGRESS HAVE THE POWER TO AMEND THE RULES OF COURT WHICH INCLUDES THE REQUIREMENT OF PROPER VERIFICATION?
NO. Verification is covered by the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts. The power to promulgate such rules is the Supreme Court’s EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY under the 1987 Constitution, which is an improvement over the 1973 and 1935 Constitutions for the purpose of safeguarding the INSTITUTIONAL INDEPENDENCE of the High Court (Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96; 1999, and Baguio Market Vendors Multi-purpose Cooperative v. Judge Cortes, 613 SCRA 733; 2010).
Under the 1987 Constitution, the Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts (first par., Sec. 2, in relation to the fifth par., Sec. 5, ART. VIII).
4. Consequently, the REPEAL of rules on verification sought to be promulgated by the House of Representatives is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This state of the law and jurisprudence is within the MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE of all courts; and, is likewise within the MANDATORY QUASI-JUDICIAL NOTICE of the Senate, considering that ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith (Art. 3, Civil Code). If ignorance of the law is not an excuse, with greater reason is ignorance of the Constitution not an excuse.
5. While the House of Representatives has the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment (sub par. 1, Sec. 3, ART. XI, 1987 Philippine Constitution), the same is necessarily LIMITED by the requirements of DUE PROCESS. To rule otherwise would lead to the ABSURDITY of granting an ABSOLUTE POWER in favor of a part of Congress which even the whole of: a) Congress; b) Executive Department; c) Judicial Department; or d) Philippine Government – cannot properly claim to have under the fundamental law of the land.
6. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them (Sec. 1, ART. II, ibid). Sovereignty which resides in the Filipino people is ABSOLUTE. But the government authority which emanates from them is NOT.