FEB.

7, 2012 DATE

NR # 2672C
REF. NO.

Justice panel finds sufficiency of grounds to impeach SC Justice

After an enlightening debate, the House Committee on Justice today, by a vote of 27-4, declared there are sufficient grounds for the impeachment of Supreme Court Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo. Prior to the voting, the committee, presided by Chairman Niel Tupas, Jr. (5th District, Iloilo), also turned down the motion to dismiss (28-5) the impeachment complaint for lack of jurisdiction cited by Rep. Edcel Lagman. Lagman claimed that the committee had lost jurisdiction because the constitutionally mandated 60 session-day period within which the panel should dispose of the case had lapsed. However, chairman Tupas cited a certification from the Secretary Generals office stating that, in fact, the 60 session-days prescription has yet to lapse. There are still four remaining session days within which the committee could act accordingly on the impeachment case. Members of the majority, including Deputy Speaker Raul Daza and Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales, argued on the difference between a legislative session day and a calendar day, pointing out the constitutional power of the House of Representatives to set its own rules within the bounds of the fundamental law. Now that the panel has found sufficiency in the grounds, Gonzales said the committee has to set a hearing to allow the presentation of arguments by the complainants and, maybe, another day for Justice Del Castillo to present his side. After which the committee will vote for the sufficiency of probable cause which will require the majority of all the members, Gonzales added. In the assumption that it reaches plenary, it would need at least one-third of all the members of the House or about 95 votes. And in the event that the decsion of the committee is to dismiss, one-third vote of all the members of the House can overturn that decision, Gonzales said. Gonzales, however, said that in deference to the on-going Corona impeachment trial, the issue on Justice Del Castillo could be held in abeyance until after the Senate shall have decided on the Corona case. Those who voted against the impeachment complaint were Reps. Janette Garin, Orlando Fua, Simeon Datumanong, and Rodolfo Albano. Rep. Lagman chose to abstain as he strongly maintained that the committee had lost its jurisdiction over the case after the 60-day period had lapsed.

FEB. 7, 2012 DATE

NR # 2672C
REF. NO.

As per an Executive Summary issued during the committee hearing, the grounds raised for impeachment say that Justice Del Castillo betrayed public trust when he lifted without attribution significant portions of the works of foreign authorities, in violation of pertinent rules on use and citation of sources; when he twisted the works of the foreign authorities to make it appear that the theory espoused by these authors support an argument to dismiss the case of petitioners (Vinuya v. Executive Secretary); and when, in twisting the true intents of the sources, he misled the other members of the Supreme Court. However, Justice Del Castillo, through counsel, maintained that the errors in the footnoting of his ponencia in the said decision which resulted in the improper citation of certain works by foreign authors were without malice or bad faith, and do not constitute betrayal of public trust as enunciated in Article XI, Section 2 of the 1986 Philippine Constitution. The backgrounder from the committee recalled that on April 2010, the Supreme Court promulgated its decision, penned by Associate Justice Del Castillo, in Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary, upholding the position of the Executive Secretary and ruled that the President cannot be complelled by the Court to sue Japan in order to espouse the claims of petitioners who were victims of the comfort women system. It may be recalled that the Supreme Court En Banc on October 12, 2010, issued a decision dismissing the plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross negligence charges against Justice Del Castillo following an investigation conducted by the Courts Ethics Committee. (30) dpt