THERE is this provision in the Constitution that is not clearly interpreted and explained, especially to the general public.
The said provision involves the prohibition on filing of more than one impeachment case against impeachable officials within a period of one year. Does the bar cover entities or individuals in filing an impeachment case in the House of Representatives for consideration and subsequent transmittal to the Senate that will serve as impeachment court? Or does the prohibition apply only to the Lower House which is the body that reviews the various articles, the evidence, and the process prior to its transmittal to the Senate?
Yes, we are asking these questions because in the VP Sara impeachment case, this prohibition is one major issue raised by senators who favored remanding the Articles of Impeachment to the Lower House. These senators argued that the House must have violated that particular provision of the Constitution. There were actually three impeachment cases submitted to the House against VP Sara.
One more was submitted but wasn’t given due course by the Lower House because it has already decided to consolidate the three earlier cases into one and transmit this to the Senate.
It is this situation, we see the need to clearly explain who or which entity is covered by that Constitutional provision. If it is the individual or organization desiring to file an impeachment case for the House’s consideration then we can be certain that there will be complaints from them being denied of their rights to redress of their grievances by the Constitution itself.
On the other hand, if it is the Lower House that is barred from transmitting more than one impeachment case within a year’s period then the issue of whether consolidating two or more impeachment cases submitted to the lower legislative body is allowed or not must be settled.
If not, then does the House select only one from among those filed, and submit their choice to the Senate which will then “forthrightly” start the trial?
Again, from where we are perched, we can see that this “prohibition” is one gray area that must be clarified to the fullest. Otherwise, the Filipino people will be at the mercy of the varying interpretations – and even applications – of the said Constitutional provision.
*********************************
We learned that the Northern Davao Electric Cooperative (NORDECO) is questioning before the Supreme Court the legality of a bill recently approved by both houses of Congress (or has it been signed into law already?) allowing the expansion of the franchise area of Davao Light and Power Co. to the cities and municipalities in Northern Davao Province and Davao de Oro.
The move by the electric cooperative is understandable because the power distribution firm created by the government under the auspices of the National Electrification Administration (NEA) has been operating in those areas for closed to half a century already.
Unfortunately, the power consumers in the power co-op’s franchise feel the services it renders has not kept up with the pace of the development aspirations of the provinces and cities concerned. The consumers believe NORDECO hasn’t done enough to be at par with their expectation. So their once simple protest done through intelligible body language eventually morphed into audible murmurs and finally loud demands for change in electricity supplier.
But of course there are residents in Davao del Norte and Davao de Oro who believe that if there is inadequacy in the service, immediately doing away with the service provider is not the best solution to the problem.
Instead, they argued that the cooperative should have been helped in solving its shortcomings. But then many potential investors who could be leading bearers of socio-economic development in the two provinces under the NORDECO franchise are known to be in a hurry. They cannot afford to wait and let their capital go into a deep sleep.
And these potential investors know as well that most people in the areas expect a faster economic improvement and the opening of job opportunities when new industries and businesses come in.
So, those who see a better electricity provider as major ally in attaining their dream for development eventually succeeded in having Congress approve the change in power supplier.
The question now is, will the High Court see the same way as the Congress did?
“Let us to see,” to quote the late Senator Landring Almendras.
