Lagman, Rodriguez say impeachment complaint vs. Leonen just 'hearsay'

Albay Representative Edcel Lagman on Thursday said the impeachment complaint filed against Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen should be dismissed for being insufficient in form and substance.

Lagman, a lawyer, made the remark at the start of the House Committee on Justice  hearing on the complaint against Leonen. The panel seeks to determine whether the complaint is sufficient in form and substance.

During the hearing, Lagman explained that in determining sufficiency in form, Section 3 of the House Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings states that the complaint's verification should be based on the complainant's "personal knowledge" or "authentic records"

According to him, the complainant, Edwin Cordevilla, secretary-general of the Filipino League of Advocates For Good Government, only relied on newspaper accounts as well as columnists' opinions in filing his complaint.

Lagman pointed out that these were not authentic records and were "invariably hearsay."

"A reading of the complaint readily reveals complainant's lack of personal knowledge respecting the proffered grounds of culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust against Justice Leonen," he said.

Cordevilla, who filed the complaint against Leonen on December 7, 2020, has claimed that the magistrate committed culpable violation of the Constitution for failing to dispose of at least 37 cases within 24 months.

According to the complainant, this was a violation of Section 16, Article III of the Constitution which mandates the speedy disposition of cases.

Cordevilla further alleged that Leonen had betrayed public trust when he failed to file his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth during his tenure at the University of the Philippines.

According to Lagman, the complainant had failed to attach to his complaint the authentic records or official certifications on Leonen's supposed failure to "seasonably decide cases" and file his SALNs for a number of years prior to his appointment as associate justice.

"Verily, complainant's lack of personal knowledge and dismal failure to attach the pertinent official certifications or authentic records indubitably make his complaint insufficient in form," Lagman said.

Deputy Speaker Rufus Rodriguez echoed Lagman's statement. He stressed that the complaint was purely based on hearsay, adding that "hearsay evidence would not stand in any proceedings."

"The complaint is beyond verifying and should be deemed unverified," he said.

Insufficiency in substance

Further, Lagman said Leonen's supposed "non-compliance with director matters does not constitute an impeachable offense." This was his response to the allegation that the magistrate had failed to dispose of at least 37 cases.

"The Supreme Court has categorically and consistently held that for Supreme Court justices and for the High Court itself, the subject constitutional provision is merely directory, not mandatory, because 'magistrates must be given discretion to defer the disposition of certain cases to make way for other equally important matters in the Court's agenda,' and as 'the court of last resort, this Court should be given ample amount of time to deliberate on cases pending before it,'" Lagman explained.

Lagman also emphasized that Leonen's supposed failure to file SALNs is not a ground for impeachment because it supposedly happened before Leonen was appointed as associate justice in 2012.

An impeachable incumbent official should only be impeached for offenses committed during his incumbency, Lagman said. He also said the offense of failure to file SALNs prescribes after eight years pursuant to Republic Act No. 6713, in relation to Republic Act  3326.

"This would foreclose malevolent searches for bygone skeletons in distant closets. Moreover, Justice Leonen's disqualification and compliance with mandatory requirements have been vetted by the Judicial and Bar Council," Lagman said. --KBK, GMA News