House refers impeachment complaint vs Leonen to justice panel

THE House of Representatives on Tuesday referred to its Committee on Justice the impeachment complaint against Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen to determine whether it was sufficient in form.

Edwin Cordevilla filed the complaint last December. Ilocos Norte 2nd District Rep. Angelo Marcos Barba endorsed the complaint.

Under impeachment rules, the Speaker shall have an impeachment complaint included in the order of business within a certain number of session days from receipt. It shall then, the rules stated, be referred to the House Committee on Justice within three session days thereafter.

The House resumed session on Monday after a break. Speaker Lord Allan Velasco said in an interview that “with the Leonen impeachment,…na-forward na natin iyan sa (we’ve forwarded it to the) Rules committee so they have three days from the day the session starts to be able to refer it to the Committee on Justice na pinanghahawakan po ni (which is headed by) Chair Veloso and definitely with Chair Veloso at the helm of the Committee on Justice, sigurado tayo fair po ‘yung magiging trial ( (we are sure that the trial will be fair) regarding that impeachment complaint.”

Leyte 3rd District Rep. Vicente Veloso 3rd, a former Court of Appeals justice, is the chairman of the House Committee on Justice.

The impeachment rules stated that upon due referral, the House Committee on Justice shall determine if the complaint is sufficient in form.

If the committee finds the complaint insufficient in form, it shall return the complaint to the secretary general within three session days “with a written explanation of the insufficiency.” The secretary general shall then, the rules further stated, return the complaint to the complainants with the said written explanation within three session days “from receipt of the committee resolution finding the complaint insufficient in form.”

If the committee finds the complaint sufficient in form, it shall determine whether the complaint is sufficient in substance.

“The requirement of substance is met if there is a recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the committee. If the committee finds that the complaint is not sufficient in substance, it shall dismiss the complaint and shall submit its report as provided hereunder”, the rules read.

Ako Bicol Rep. Alfredo Garbin Jr., chairman of the House Committee on Constiutional Amendments, said in an interview on Tuesday that “[a]s to the order of priority,” the impeachment complaint against Leonen was not among those enumerated by Velasco.

“As to the order of priority, wala siya doon sa in-enumerate niya (As to the order of priority, it was not among those enumerated by him)”, Garbin said.

The lawmaker was asked on Monday in a meeting with Velasco and he said that “basically, ‘yung meeting kahapon kasama si (the meeting yesterday with) Majo[rity Leader Martin Romualdez], ‘yung priority measures na dapat tapusin bago mag-adjourn ngayong (the priority measures that should be finished before session adjourns in) June”. The measures mentioned by Garbin include the proposed Bayanihan 3, the creation of the Philippine virology institute, and Resolution of Both Houses 2 (RBH 2). RBH 2 contains the proposed amendments to specified economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution.

In a statement in December after receiving information that an impeachment complaint was filed, Leonen described as “false” the issues “raised by some”.

In the complaint, Leonen was accused of committing culpable violation of the Constitution for allegedly “arbitrarily, willfully, intentionally, deliberately & malevolently, with evident bad faith, failing to dispose of at least” 37 cases within 24 months “as mandated by Section 15 (1), Article 8, in relation to Section 16, Article III of the Constitution, which mandates the prompt action and speedy disposition of cases.”

Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution states that cases must be decided or resolved within 24 months from date of submission for the High Court. Under its Article III, all persons have the right to speedy case disposition.

The complaint, which cited an article by Manila Times columnist Rigoberto Tiglao, stated that “it was reported that of the eighty-two pending cases of respondent, thirty-seven of these were assigned to him several years ago.”

It was alleged in the complaint that aside from violating the Constitution, Leonen “wantonly ignored the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court”.

The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court directed justices to resolve all cases within 24 months “from the date of submission for resolution.”

It was also alleged in the complaint that “if we were to review the decisions of respondent during the Aquino administration, it is clear that he was anything but impartial”. It was alleged in the complaint that “[w]hen President [Rodrigo] Duterte was voted in power, however, respondent would almost always take sides against the current administration”. Two tables in the complaint showed how Leonen had voted in several Supreme Court decisions (whether he had concurred or dissented).

Leonen was also accused of committing culpable violation of the Constitution for allegedly “arbitrarily delaying the resolution of cases” that were pending before him “as Chairperson of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal” or HRET.

Based on the complaint, he was appointed as HRET chairman in October 2019.

“When he headed the Tribunal, there were thirty-four (34) election cases filed, consisting of twenty-one (21) Election Protest cases and thirteen (13) Quo Warranto cases”, the complaint read.

It was alleged in the complaint that “[w]ith respondent at the helm, the election cases moved at a snail pace”.

Of the 34 cases, according to the complaint, three “were assigned to Leonen: two (2) were dismissed for being moot without being resolved on the merits while one” was “still pending”.

Leonen was also accused of betraying public trust when he allegedly “failed to file his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (‘SALN’) during his tenure at the University of the Philippines, as mandated by Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.” This, it was alleged in the complaint, “also negates the probity and integrity required of him as a member of the Judiciary.”

Based on the complaint, Leonen was at University of the Philippines from 1989 until 2011 and allegedly did not file SALNs for some years.

As an employee of the state university, according to the complaint, he was “required to submit his SALN pursuant to Section 8” of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.