Too much technicalities in the impeachment proceedings

The way the presiding officer is currently managing the proceedings has convinced a lot of legal experts that procedural inanities are obstructing, impeding, and delaying the constitutional process which should not be equated to a judicial process. Substance is being set aside in the name of too much legalistic gobbledygook.

As early as more than a year ago, the Philconsa or Philippine Constitution Association has forewarned against judicializing the impeachment processes. The guardians of our fundamental law have reminded one and all that accountability of public officials should not be derailed by too much fixation on technicalities. The senator-judges should call out the presiding officer if his rulings are too much technical rather than substantive.

The whole nation was amply warned by Philconsa: “At stake is not merely the fate of one official, but the integrity of the Constitution itself. Impeachment is the people’s mechanism to enforce Accountability of Public Officials. It must not be thwarted by procedural invention or partisan maneuver.” Former chief justice Reynato Puno, chairman of the Philconsa, was reported to have issued those words of wisdom.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic F. Leonen penned the decision in the case of Dr. Joseph L. Malixi et al v. Dr. Glory V. Baltazar (GR no 208224, 22 November 2017) where the Supreme Court held: "These rules are not intended to hamper litigants or complicate litigation but, indeed, to provide for a system under which suitors may be heard in the correct form and manner and at the prescribed time in a peaceful confrontation before a judge whose authority they acknowledge. The other alternative is the settlement of their conflict through the barrel of a gun."

The Supreme Court succinctly stated in that Malixi v. Baltazar case: "Technicalities, however, must be avoided. The law abhors technicalities that impede the cause of justice. The court's primary duty is to render or dispense justice. A litigation is not a game of technicalities. Law suits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts. Litigations must be decided on their merits and not on technicality."

It was further stressed in Malixi: "Every party litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities. Thus, dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon where the policy of the court is to encourage hearings of appeals on their merits and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not override substantial justice."

Substance is far more paramount than procedural inanities. The Supreme Court emphasized: "It is a far better and more prudent course of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice."

The reason why some congressmen and ordinary "hoi polloi" are led to sleep while attending impeachment sessions is that because the procedural has been overly distracted by an inordinate fixation at procedural inanities, to the prejudice of the more primordial imperative of substantive justice. The people are sick and tired at these lawyers' games at technical and procedural bantering and waste of time and attention.