Umali’s courageous position
Posted by unang apluma on Monday, October 4, 2010
Under: 1st-APLUMA UPDATES
BY ISMAEL AMIGO
1ST-APLUMA NATIONAL PRESIDENT
I THINK the House of Representatives is correct in asserting that impeachment is its sole and exclusive prerogative as underscored by Oriental Mindoro 2nd District Rep. Reynaldo Umali a.k.a., "R.U." to his staff, during his privilege speech. last Monday, Sept. 27.
Recently, the House Committee on Justice has resumed the impeachment proceedings against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez despite the status quo order of the Supreme Court.
Umali, during his speech, emphasized that Section 3, Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution, that “impeachment is within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of Congress and no part of which is shared with either the Judiciary or the Executive Branch”.
In his speech, Umali described as “fallacious” the Supreme Court’s status quo order in the impeachment proceedings against Gutierrez.
As Vice Chairman of the House Committee on Justice, Umali said he personally decided to take the stand and not to submit to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the current impeachment case.
This is a courageous move for Umali, who as member of the Philippine Bar, is now now at risk of judicial discipline for taking a view not supportive of the jurisprudence laid down by the High Court in the Francisco vs House of Representatives case.
“The Supreme Court over-extended the limits of judicial power and crossed the borders of legislative prerogatives - utterly disregarding the basic tenets of separation of powers, the system of checks and balances, and public accountability,” Umali said in his speech.
The lawmaker is convinced that the Supreme Court overstepped an exclusive congressional prerogative when it issued a resolution en banc on September 14, 2010, in G. R. No. 193459, requiring the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives, to observe the status quo in the pending impeachment proceedings of the Ombudsman.
“To my mind, we have no more reason to be in this August Body if we simply sit back, remain quiescent and allow a mockery of the doctrine of separation of powers to go unbridled,” Umali said.
Umali added that allowing SC to dictate on a matter put solely under the powers of the legislative branch would result in an anticipated constitutional dilemma that could be avoided just by invoking the specific and exclusive constitutional mandate of Congress over impeachment cases.
“Now is the time to assert and define our constitutional and political history and put our impeachment process - to borrow the words of our President, Benigno S. Aquino III, ‘sa daang matuwid’, strictly in accordance with our Constitution,” Umali emphasized.
Yesterday, Umali filed House Resolution No. 458, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives for the Honorable Supreme Court to exercise judicial statesmanship and restraint and to immediately lift its September 14, 2010 status quo order in G. R. No. 193459.
The resolution also called on SC to dismiss, at the soonest possible time, the petition involving the impeachment of Ombudsman Gutierrez, for lack of jurisdiction, it being a political issue and, therefore, non-justiciable and in the name of separation of powers, checks and balances and public accountability under the Constitution.
Once approved, Umali said Congress should submit the resolution to the Supreme Court, in lieu of the compliance of our Committee on Justice to comment on the petition in G. R. No. 193459.
***
During PGMA's tenure, several mega-projects that may have benefitted the Filipinos nothwithstanding the pockets of unsatiable politicos, went to naught whenever the SC gets in the way.
Not only that. Contracts were reviewed and turned down, decided by the SC with impunity even these were already signed by Philippine representatives and their foreign counterparts.
The result? We'll, fittingly, the SC would say we saved billions of moneys for Filipinos for this or that one-sided, anti-Filipino contract.
But, but, but. In the real sense, the SC is sending a very st(w)rong warning to all and future investors that: "It's not healthy to invest in the Philippines!" Done deals are not done deals! Contracts are not contracts! Agreements are not agreements! MOAs are not MOAs!
And that includes the Executive Department of the government. Under present setup of things, the SC can junk any Malacanang mega-deal.
So, unless the SC is not privy to that or this mega-deal negotiation from the very start, that mega-deal is no mega-deal. But the truth is, we have executives in all government offices and it is that simple reason why they are there. They have the power vested in them. They have the trust from the national government. Meaning, they can enter into contracts provided these are beneficial to the Filipino people.
See how the SC have grown. You be the judge.
1ST-APLUMA NATIONAL PRESIDENT
I THINK the House of Representatives is correct in asserting that impeachment is its sole and exclusive prerogative as underscored by Oriental Mindoro 2nd District Rep. Reynaldo Umali a.k.a., "R.U." to his staff, during his privilege speech. last Monday, Sept. 27.
Recently, the House Committee on Justice has resumed the impeachment proceedings against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez despite the status quo order of the Supreme Court.
Umali, during his speech, emphasized that Section 3, Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution, that “impeachment is within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of Congress and no part of which is shared with either the Judiciary or the Executive Branch”.
In his speech, Umali described as “fallacious” the Supreme Court’s status quo order in the impeachment proceedings against Gutierrez.
As Vice Chairman of the House Committee on Justice, Umali said he personally decided to take the stand and not to submit to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the current impeachment case.
This is a courageous move for Umali, who as member of the Philippine Bar, is now now at risk of judicial discipline for taking a view not supportive of the jurisprudence laid down by the High Court in the Francisco vs House of Representatives case.
“The Supreme Court over-extended the limits of judicial power and crossed the borders of legislative prerogatives - utterly disregarding the basic tenets of separation of powers, the system of checks and balances, and public accountability,” Umali said in his speech.
The lawmaker is convinced that the Supreme Court overstepped an exclusive congressional prerogative when it issued a resolution en banc on September 14, 2010, in G. R. No. 193459, requiring the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives, to observe the status quo in the pending impeachment proceedings of the Ombudsman.
“To my mind, we have no more reason to be in this August Body if we simply sit back, remain quiescent and allow a mockery of the doctrine of separation of powers to go unbridled,” Umali said.
Umali added that allowing SC to dictate on a matter put solely under the powers of the legislative branch would result in an anticipated constitutional dilemma that could be avoided just by invoking the specific and exclusive constitutional mandate of Congress over impeachment cases.
“Now is the time to assert and define our constitutional and political history and put our impeachment process - to borrow the words of our President, Benigno S. Aquino III, ‘sa daang matuwid’, strictly in accordance with our Constitution,” Umali emphasized.
Yesterday, Umali filed House Resolution No. 458, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives for the Honorable Supreme Court to exercise judicial statesmanship and restraint and to immediately lift its September 14, 2010 status quo order in G. R. No. 193459.
The resolution also called on SC to dismiss, at the soonest possible time, the petition involving the impeachment of Ombudsman Gutierrez, for lack of jurisdiction, it being a political issue and, therefore, non-justiciable and in the name of separation of powers, checks and balances and public accountability under the Constitution.
Once approved, Umali said Congress should submit the resolution to the Supreme Court, in lieu of the compliance of our Committee on Justice to comment on the petition in G. R. No. 193459.
***
During PGMA's tenure, several mega-projects that may have benefitted the Filipinos nothwithstanding the pockets of unsatiable politicos, went to naught whenever the SC gets in the way.
Not only that. Contracts were reviewed and turned down, decided by the SC with impunity even these were already signed by Philippine representatives and their foreign counterparts.
The result? We'll, fittingly, the SC would say we saved billions of moneys for Filipinos for this or that one-sided, anti-Filipino contract.
But, but, but. In the real sense, the SC is sending a very st(w)rong warning to all and future investors that: "It's not healthy to invest in the Philippines!" Done deals are not done deals! Contracts are not contracts! Agreements are not agreements! MOAs are not MOAs!
And that includes the Executive Department of the government. Under present setup of things, the SC can junk any Malacanang mega-deal.
So, unless the SC is not privy to that or this mega-deal negotiation from the very start, that mega-deal is no mega-deal. But the truth is, we have executives in all government offices and it is that simple reason why they are there. They have the power vested in them. They have the trust from the national government. Meaning, they can enter into contracts provided these are beneficial to the Filipino people.
See how the SC have grown. You be the judge.
In : 1st-APLUMA UPDATES