Date:

Home

In the News

Archive

Announcements

Recommended Links

OpTeam Newsletter

Uploaded Materials

Contact Us

TAN ACTIVITIES

THE DEPED TEXTBOOK DELIVERY PROGRAM POST-EVALUATION

The Post Evaluation Workshop of the Textbook Delivery Program of the Department of Education (DepEd) was held last November 4 at the Manansala Function Room of Holiday Inn Galleria Manila. The workshop was organized by the Philippine Governance Forum with support from The Asia Foundation. Stakeholders such as the agency’s staff and officials, suppliers, and civil society monitors were represented. Representatives from DepEd include Mr. Juan Miguel Luz, Undersecretary for Finance and Administration, Ms. Lulu Pilor, head of Instructional Materials Council Secretariat (IMCS), and other DepEd personnel.  Dane, Anvil, and Brown Madonna Publishings likewise participated together with the civil society representatives from Government Watch (G-Watch), Transparency and Accountability Network (TAN),  National Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL), Procurement Watch Inc. (PWI), Caucus of Development-Non Government Organizations (CODE-NGO), and other equally important monitors.

 Part of the program was the presentation of feedbacks from the three stakeholders. Ms. Pilor presented the feedback from the DepEd. Feedback from the suppliers were given by both Dane and Anvil Publications while that of the civil society was presented by Ms. Nikki Pascual of NAMFREL and Mr. Redempto Parafina of G-Watch.

 An afternoon workshop divided the whole cluster into a number of smaller groups composed of DepEd, civil society monitors, and suppliers. They discussed on the key issues during the first round of textbook delivery program and were also asked to formulate recommendations for the betterment of the process.

 Some of the key issues include:

• The lack and insufficient information on the project relating to delivery scheme, roles, acceptance procedure, information on quantity of textbooks to be received by districts/high schools etc.
• Limited delivery schedule
• Defects in terms of quality and quantity of textbooks delivered to districts and high schools
• Delay of payment and lack of information on the process of payment

 A number of recommendations were likewise given by the different working groups. These include:

• Review of the design and content of DepEd Memo 162 pertaining to Inspection, Delivery, and Acceptance of Textbooks
• Develop information campaign using user-friendly, clear, more comprehensible manuals and information materials on the project related to delivery scheme, acceptance procedures, and persons accountable
• Conduct trainings, stakeholder meetings, orientation seminars to clarify roles and accountabilities and processes of the program
• Review the delivery schedule taking into consideration geographic limitations, and
• Setting-up of grievance mechanisms (e.g. complaint desks at both the Division and Central Office)

 The morning session was facilitated by Ms. Carol Rivera of DepEd-IMCS while the workshop in the afternoon was facilitated by Ms. Grace Leung.

PWI TRAINS CIVIL SOCIETY FOR BAC WORK

Last October 27, the Procurement Watch Inc. (PWI) hosted a seminar-training for civil society groups on procurement monitoring work. Representatives from various groups (business, NGOs, professional organizations) joined the training at Holiday Inn (formerly Manila Galleria Suites) in Ortigas.

Apart from the experts of PWI, the other invited speakers/resource persons were Atty. Joel Syquia and Atty. Dennis Santiago, who are members of the Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB). The speakers presented the new procurement process under the Government Procurement Reform Act, and the newly signed Implementing Rules and Regulations, and the Code of Ethics to be strictly observed. PWI also presented their newly improved website (www.procurementwatch.org.ph), which provides a window for BAC observers’ reports to be submitted.

The attendees of the training will be included in the pool of BAC observers which the PWI will submit to the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB). The other members of the pool will come from the Visayas and Mindanao regions who will likewise receive training from PWI. The OMB will recommend BAC observers to the government agencies based on the list of civil society representatives trained by PWI.

TAN HOLDS THE SECOND ANTI-CORRUPTION LITERACY PROGRAM FOR THE YEAR

The second Anti-Corruption Literacy Program for 2003 was held last October 17 and 18 at the Eugenio Lopez Center in Antipolo City. This forum was organized by the TAN interns, the Political Science 190 students from University of the Philippines Diliman.

Students from various universities such as University of the Philippines, De La Salle University, Miriam College, University of Santo Tomas, Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, University of Manila, Far Eastern University, City College of Manila, and Manuel L. Quezon University participated. Members of the Junior GraftWatch Units of the Office of the Ombudsman as well as representatives from Sangguniang Kabataan were also present.

The activity concluded with the participants drafting their own anti-corruption plans and creative presentations.

Resource speakers included Mr. Vincent Lazatin of Pagbabago@Pilipinas for the promotion strategy, Ms. Kristina Pimentel of Procurement Watch, Inc. for prevention, Atty. Camilo Miguel Montesa, of the Lawyers League for Liberty, for prosecution, and Dr. Segundo Romero of the Development Academy of the Philippines for the TAN Anti-Corruption Framework. This tow-day forum was facilitated by Ms. Karen Yao.

TAN INTERNSHIP FINALE

In July, the Political Science students of Dr. Segundo Romero from the University of the Philippines started to work with the TAN Operations Team and were involved in the different activities of TAN in the fight against graft and corruption. They experienced attending meetings, fora, seminars, and experienced hands-on what the search for good governance is all about. They were exposed to the different projects and advocacies of the Network, such as the Lifestyle Check with the Office of the Ombudsman and Presidential Anti-Graft Commission, as well as the lobbying for the passage of the National Revenue Authority Bill. As a final project, the students organized this year’s second anti-corruption literacy program at Eugenio Lopez Center in Antipolo City last October 17-18.
 

ADVOCACY

The Impeachment Issue That Never Was

The Complaint….
Written by: Atty. Dan Adan and circulated in the ReformBIR e-group
Edited by the TAN OpTeam to focus on the issues raised by the complainants

The Chief Justice of our Supreme Court is being impeached. The following are the grounds, which the complainants allege in their complaint:

1. Violations of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
2. Betrayal of Public Trust
3. Culpable Violation of the Constitution

Under the first two, the complainants allege the following:

a. Unlawful Underpayment of Cost of Living Allowance of Members and Personnel of the Judiciary
b. Unlawful Disbursement of JDF funds for Infrastructure Projects of the Supreme Court
c. Unlawful Disbursements of JDF funds for the Acquisition of Motor Vehicles
d. Unlawful Disbursement of JDF Funds as Subsidy for the Court of Appeals Printing Press
e. The order of Chief Justice Davide ordering Court personnel not to cooperate and surrender documents sought by the Committee on Justice and by Congressman Felix William Fuentebella is a violation of Section 3 (a) of RA 3019
f. The letter of Chief Justice Davide to Speaker Jose De Venecia soliciting his assistance with regard to the Congressional Inquiry in aid of legislation is a betrayal of public trust and also is against Section 3 (a) of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
g. Respondent Davide's betrayal of the public trust is made palpable by the intimidating remarks hurled by his subaltern during the congressional hearing conducted

On the third ground, the complainants allege that:

a. Respondent Davide's sole arrogation of a judicial power, which, on its face, is a rendition of an advisory opinion is a flagrant violation of the principle of judicial review

The law in question: Presidential Decree No. 1949 establishing the Judiciary Development Fund issued by Pres. Ferdinand E. Marcos on July 18, 1984.

Pertinent provisions upon which complainants relied for the basis of their complaint:

"Section 1. There is hereby established a Judiciary Development Fund, hereinafter referred to as the Fund, for the benefit of the members and personnel of the
Judiciary to help ensure and guarantee the independence of the Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution and public policy and required by the impartial administration of justice. The Fund shall be derived from, among others, the increase in the legal fees prescribed in the amendments to Rule 141 of the Rules of Court to be promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The Fund shall be used to augment the allowances of the members and personnel of the Judiciary and to finance the acquisition, maintenance and repair of office equipment and facilities; Provided, That at least eighty percent (80%) of the Fund shall be used for cost of living allowances, and not more than twenty percent (20%) of the said Fund shall be used for office equipment and facilities of the Courts located where the legal fees are collected; Provided, further, That said allowances of the members and personnel of the Judiciary shall be distributed in proportion of their basic salaries; and, provided, finally, That bigger allowances may be granted to those receiving a basic salary of less than P1,000.00 a month."

“Section 2. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall administer and allocate the Fund and shall have the sole exclusive power and duty to approve the authorized disbursements and expenditures of the Fund in accordance with the guidelines set in this Decree and its implementing rules and regulations.”

For a full text of P.D. No. 1945, see http://www.chanrobles.com/presidentialdecreeno1949.htm

The complainants are saying that the Chief Justice violated this law by not disbursing 80% of the JDF for the payment of COLA of members of the court and its personnel which they term as underpayment. To bolster their claim, the complainants presented the following figures:

1,156,777,508.53

Moreover, by looking at the supposed underpayments of COLA and the beginning balance of the fund for the succeeding year, it appears that whatever amount supposed to be allocated for COLA to cover the entire 80% mandated by P.D. No. 1945 can be fully covered by the balance of the fund.

JDF Ending Balance in 2000 which is also the beginning balance

in 2001  

Deficiency in COLA payments                     

282,488,950.67

JDF Ending Balance, 2001                         

Deficiency in COLA payments                     

527,867,192.91

JDF Ending Balance, 2002                           

not indicated in the complaint

Thus, it is only the year 2002 where it is unclear whether the unpaid COLA cannot be covered by the balance of the fund.

They also allege the unlawful use of the funds for the infrastructure projects of the Supreme Court, the purchase of vehicles, and the subsidy for the Court of Appeals printing press.

These infrastructure projects refer to:

1. Renovation of the Session Hall in the main building of the Supreme Court - total disbursement of 64,169,810.00 covering the period 2001 and 2002.

Complaint alleges that of this amount, 5,568,630.00 was spent for curtains and draperies and 8,125,455.00 was spent on "loose furniture" for the Supreme Court's Session Hall.

2. 34,679,491.80 for the construction of new cottages and the renovation of existing cottages located in the Supreme Court Compound in Baguio City.

3. The construction of the Supreme Court-Court of Appeals Multi-Purpose Hall located behind the Supreme Court Building for 99,884,746.87.

The complaint alleges that such disbursements are unlawful because "said amounts far exceeded the total Judiciary Development Fund collections of the Supreme Court and were not spent for office equipment and facilities "of the Courts located where the legal fees are collected" as required by Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1949."

The complaint further alleges that "Each of the above disbursements of the Judiciary Development Fund is a crime punishable under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code which punishes "Illegal use of public funds or property", and constitutes an act of graft and corruption and betrayal of the public trust, and is contrary to the "good behavior" required of members of the Judiciary for which respondent should be impeached."

 …these disbursements are unlawful because the funds did not come from the collection of legal fees of the Supreme Court but from the lower courts and therefore should not be disbursed by the Supreme Court for its own expenditures but should have been disbursed for office equipment and facilities of the courts located where the legal fees are collected, adhering to a strict interpretation of the provision of P.D. No. 1945.

 … the complainants might have failed to see Section 5 of the same law which states that "The Supreme Court shall promulgate the rules and regulations to implement this Decree."

The decree has provided for the check in balance of the fund in that "The Commission on Audit through the Auditor of the Supreme Court or his duly authorized representative shall quarterly audit the receipts, revenues, uses, disbursements and expenditures of the
Fund, and shall submit the appropriate report in writing to the Chairman of the Commission on Audit and to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, copy furnished the Presiding Appellate Justice of the Intermediate Appellate Court and all Executive
Judges."

By excluding Congress or even the Office of the President as among those to be provided with the report of the Commission on Audit, the decree indicates that Congress has nothing to do with the disbursements and utilization of the fund.

The second whereas clause of the decree reads:

"WHEREAS, the economic conditions of the members and personnel of the Judiciary must be periodically reviewed and upgraded in order to preserve and enhance the independence of the Judiciary at all times and safeguard the integrity of its members."

The complaint also alleges that the purchase of motor vehicles using JDF is not authorized under the decree and therefore all these acquisitions of motor vehicles for the use of Justices of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court officials and Supreme Court personnel are illegal and constitute "a crime punishable under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code which punishes "Illegal use of public funds or property", and constitutes an act of graft and corruption and betrayal of the public trust, and is contrary to the "good behavior" required of members of the Judiciary, for which respondent should be impeached."

Again, the source of the fund used for these disbursements are the increases in legal fees imposed by the Supreme Court among litigants.

The complaint also alleges that the Chief Justice also authorized the disbursement of 5,000,000.00 in the year 2000 as Subsidy of the Supreme Court for the Printing Press of the Court of Appeals. Complainants assail the legality of such disbursement saying that
this amount exceeds the 3,537,672.46 JDF collections of the Court of Appeals for the same calendar year in which the disbursement was made.

Complainants also cite Sec. 3(a)of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in saying that the Chief Justice has committed corrupt practices.

The pertinent provision reads: "Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. – In
addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent
authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense."

Two documents are cited by the complainants as acts of the Chief Justice which they forward as constituting violations of the above-cited provision. These are:

1. Administrative Resolution promulgated by the Supreme Court on 23 September 2003 (A.M. No.03-9-05-SC) which reads: "Acting on the Letter dated 8 September 2003 of Mrs. Corazon M. Ordoñez, Chief, FMBO, regarding the letter dated 3 September 2003 of the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives and the letter dated 27
August 2003 of the Hon. Representative Felix William Fuentebella for the submission of the documents/papers indicated in the letter of the latter, the Court resolved to direct Mrs. Ordoñez (a) not to submit anymore the records which have already been transmitted to the Commission on Audit and (b) obtain prior clearance from the Court for the other records."

and

2. A letter to Speaker Jose De Venecia by the Chief Justice dated 30 September 2003 which reads in part: "The use of the unexpended portion of the 20% of the JDF for equipment and facilities for the assailed construction or projects can, undoubtedly, be justified by this augmentation authority of the Chief Justice.

The complainants take the Supreme Court Resolution directing a court personnel not to comply with the request from the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives as violation of Sec. 3(a) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

They further allege that the Chief Justice, through such resolution has "abundantly betrayed public trust by refusing to be accountable for the funds which Congress, under the Constitution, has a clear right to inquire into."

As to the letter to Speaker Jose De Venecia, the complainants viewed the same as an act of "soliciting help from the Speaker of the House to intercede on matters pertaining exclusively to the Committee on Justice" and further says that it "is a flagrant violation of RA 3019, and definitely an example of how the public trust is betrayed."

Complainants also attribute to the Chief Justice the remarks made by a Supreme Court representative during the hearing of the Committee on Justice saying that it displays the betrayal of the public trust by Chief Justice Davide.

Lastly, the complainants aver that "Respondent Davide's arrogation of a judicial power, which, on its face, is a rendition of an advisory opinion, is a flagrant violation of the principle of judicial review."

Complainants accuse the Chief Justice of "resort[ing] to statutory construction on a matter calling for a simple application of the statute" quoting the letter written by the Chief Justice to Speaker De Venecia:

"First, The Court has always adhered, as it continues to adhere, to the guideline provided by P.D. 1949 on fund utilization percentages. It spends each component of the JDF within the percentage allocation provided by law such that the 80% intended for personnel allowances is maintained and not sacrificed in favor or expenditures for office equipment and facilities. But in keeping itself within the limits of the fund utilization percentages and in implementing the law, the Court has to resort to statutory construction to avoid a strict interpretation of the provision that "20% of the said Fund shall be used for office equipment and facilites of the Courts located where the legal fees are collected" that will result in unequal, inequitable and unfair distribution of the JDF."

"To ensure a fair, equal, equitable distribution of the JDF, the Court has deemed it fit to construe the law in such a way that the distribution of the 20% component of the total national collection of the JDF shall be in accordance with the needs of the courts in
particular areas for office equipment and facilities, with those in urgent need thereof prioritised in the program of disbursements so that, as much as possible, all courts could avail of up-to-date equipment and at least basic facilities that are needed in the administration of justice but which cannot be purchased and obtained if the meager appropriations therefor were to be solely relied upon."

After quoting these portions of the Chief Justice's letter to Speaker De Venecia, complainants allege that the letter constituted a wrongful exercise of a judicial power saying, "By arrogating unto himself the exercise of judicial power, Respondent, Chief Justice HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR., transgressed the long-standing rule in constitutional law, that the power of judicial review requires an actual case, calling for the exercise of thereof. (sic) He has no authority to pass upon issues through advisory opinions and neither can he resolve hypothetical or feigned constitutional problems. Without doubt, the Respondent committed a culpable violation of the Constitution."

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WHO VOTED TO IMPEACH DAVIDE (first count):

THE DEBATE

ANTI-IMPEACHMENT

A Congressional Conspiracy to Intimidate the Supreme Court in the Guise of an Illegal Impeachment

A Pagbabago@Pilipinas Statement

A cabal of congressmen acting in behalf of a crony have impeached the Honorable Chief Justice Hilario Davide. These so-called representatives are not just occasionally rented but wholly owned by Danding Cojuangco, whom they acknowledge as their "Boss". They have subverted the constitutional process of impeachment in order to intimidate the Supreme Court that is finally resolving the decades-old cases involving the coco levy funds which have long been infamous as Danding's main vehicle for crony capitalism.

We condemn this act of dirty politicians attacking the integrity of the chief magistrate to pressure the Court to act in behalf of the vested interests of their patron. This act not only casts doubt on the prestige of the Supreme Court but also destroys whatever remains of the reputation of the House of Representatives. So in one self-serving act, two key political institutions essential to the survival of our constitutional government are placed in harm's way. We therefore condemn this act in the strongest terms.

Three glaring facts inflame every decent and law-abiding Filipino.

1. Despite the constitution's clear prohibition against initiating more than one impeachment complaint per year against an impeachable official, these congressmen impeached Chief Justice Davide within one year after dismissing one other earlier complaint against him.

2. Despite the claims of transparency and accountability that are being used by these congressmen as their basis for impeaching Davide, the factual basis of the complaint and the process of determining its sufficiency in form and substance were all attended by a serious lack of public airing and popular awareness. This impeachment occurred like a thief in the night.

3. Despite the claims of acting in pursuit of the public interest, the congressmen who voted to impeach Davide were mostly those who derive financial sustenance for their political careers from the largess of Danding Cojuangco. Anyone who realizes that Conjuangco's ability to hold on to the ownership of ill-gotten wealth depends on the Supreme Court resolution of the coco levy fund cases can readily connect the dots that paint a picture of naked exercise of political clout to secure the proceeds of past corruption.

Given these facts, the impeachment of Davide is clearly illegal, without the political support of the people and bereft of any moral justification. We condemn it vigorously and we blacken the name of all congressmen who foisted this abomination on our nation. We call on every Filipino who cares for the rule of law and the principle that public office is a public trust to publicly express their rejection of this act of dirty politics. Let us raise our voices so that the nation can collectively express its disgust with this cynical use of constitutional processes.

QUITE A DIFFERENT VIEW:

SELLOUT BY THE SUPREME COURT
Statement of the PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER (circulated in the internet)

DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH SATRAPS AND PLUNDERERS
 27 October 2003, 3:00 pm

What is worse than an embattled Chief Justice is a Supreme Court that wheels-and-deals with congressmen to stop the transmission of the articles of impeachment to the Senate at all cost. What is worse than the judicial processes being twisted by threats of impeachment from disgruntled parties are Justices themselves intimidated to barter and trade with the satraps and plunderers in congress to avoid an impeachment trial.

At about 1:45 pm today, Speaker De Venecia disclosed by a phone patch interview with ANC Channel 21 that he and Congressman Chiz Escudero of NPC and Justice Bellosillo representing the Supreme Court are negotiating for a win-win solution, and that is: if the Supreme Court agrees to open the books of the JDF, the impeachment complaint would be withdrawn today. AND WHAT ELSE WOULD BE THE SUBJECT OF THE DEAL TODAY, AND IN THE FUTURE? OTHER PENDING CASES? OTHER FAVORABLE RESOLUTIONS? The Marcos cases? The Erap petitions? What else? The
public will never know.

And it is thus today that the Supreme Court has descended from being the Arbiter of Truth to being a peddler of cases and a merchant of judicial favors. The lesson the Supreme Court justices are teaching us lawyers with this move is: If you are up against a powerful party, join him.

What is so wrong with going to trial? If the Supreme Court believes in our democratic institutions, then the justices should be the first ones to welcome going to trial, so they could teach us lawyers how it is done, so that they could show the public how moribund and bankrupt the House of Representatives is. Doesn't anybody fight for the truth anymore?

We had expected the Lakas party and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Speaker de Venecia and all their ilk in Congress to start dealing the cards now that the Chief Justice has been pushed against the wall. They deserve the people's rejection in all forums and arena. But for the Supreme Court, through Justice Bellosillo, to trade with them is a betrayal of the people's trust.

Only civil cases, like contract, or torts and damages, should  be the subject of compromise in the ordinary course of litigation. This impeachment case is not a car accident case. It involves the highest public interest.

THE RESOLUTION...

SUPREME COURT TAKES JURISDICTION, DECLARES IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT UNCONSTITUTIONAL….
Based on Articles in PDI and Philippine Star

Early November 10, the high court handed down a 111-paged decision on the constitutionality of the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Davide signed by more than 76 members of the House of Representatives. With an overwhelming majority vote of 13-1, the Supreme Court declared the impeachment complaint UNCONSTITUTIONAL for violating the one-year ban imposed by the Constitution. Only Associate Justice Reynato Puno cast a dissenting opinion.

More specifically, the high court struck down the House Rules of Procedure (approved by the House on November 28, 2001) in impeachment proceedings for giving the term ‘initiate’ a meaning different from filing and referral. “These rules cannot contravene the very purpose of the Constitution which said rules were intended to effectively carry out (the Constitution). It is basic that all rules must not contravene the Constitution which is the fundamental law,” the court said.

“If as alleged Congress had absolute rule-making power, then it would by necessary implication have the power to alter or amend the meaning of the Constitution without need of referendum.”

The Supreme Court (11-3) also upheld a decision to take jurisdiction on the issue at bar contrary to De Venecia and Pimentel’s position in their argument that the Constitution had excluded impeachment proceedings from judicial review. De Venecia and Pimentel cited the Nixon vs United States ruling, where the US Supreme Court declined to rule on an issue related to the impeachment of US President Richard Nixon for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court argues that “such American jurisprudence and authorities, much less the American Constitution, are of dubious application for these are no longer controlling within our jurisdiction and have only limited persuasive effect insofar as the Philippine constitutional law is concerned.” Furthermore, the court declared that “we have cut the umbilical cord” and that the paths of the Philippine and US Constitutions “have long since diverged.” Moreover, the SC said that judicial review in the US was only implied while in the Philippines it was expressly provided and was not just “a power but also a duty… that cannot be abdicated by the mere specter of this creature called the political doctrine question.” Judicial review in the Philippines is also said to have been “given an expanded definition to include the power to correct any grave abuse of discretion on the part of any government branch or instrumentality.”

The high court also granted the petitioners legal standing in cognizance of the real “party in interest’(s)” (Davide) inability to vindicate himself for ethical reasons and for which, he could not invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

The SC also cleared up suspicions of protecting the Chief Justice. The high court emphasized that the Chief Justice and the justices were not above the law but added: “Just because he is the Chief Justice does not imply that he gets to have less in law than anybody else. The law is solicitous of every individual’s rights irrespective of his station in life.”

HOUSE STEPS BACK…
Based on Articles in PDI and Philippine Star

Aptly described as a stand down, the House of Representatives in a 13-hour deliberation last November 10-11 decided not to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The House was divided on the decision – 115 members prevailed while 77 others stood firm for the complaint to be transmitted still.

Pro-impeachment Congresspersons claim that De Venecia bowed to the Supreme Court’s decision in fear for constitutional crisis to completely break loose. They described the defeat as “the necrological rites of the power of the House to impeach.” Opposition Senator Angara adds that the Supreme Court decision is a “short term gain.” The SC decision, he says, will leave “a long term damage (however) to the constitutional system. Short term because it diffused the pieces and we can do other things. Long term because the check and balance that we need from the constitutional system is destroyed.”

On the other hand, Senate President Drilon lauded the House for respecting the Supreme Court decision. Drilon said that the Senate would have only received the impeachment complaint if “properly transmitted,” which could not be done with the second impeachment declared unconstitutional. Drilon maintained that he “will respect the decision of the Supreme Court.”

NAMFREL STATEMENT ON ACCREDITATION

23 October 2003

With great pain, we are constrained to inform you that as of today NAMFREL has not been accredited to conduct its Operation Vote Count or Operation Quick Count for the 2004 Elections. NAMFREL applied for this accreditation in January 28, 2003. After several mutually-agreed upon resettings of hearing dates at the Commission on Elections, a hearing was finally set for May 6, 2003 and a decision was released by the COMELEC dated September 2, 2003.

COMELEC Resolution SPP No. 03-002 accredited NAMFREL for certain pre-Election Day and Election Day activities pertaining to public information campaigns, advocacy, and reporting of anomalies to the COMELEC. However, the resolution was silent with respect to NAMFREL two key requests to conduct its Operation Vote Count (in light of the COMELEC’s automated counting system) and to conduct a check on the potency of the indelible ink used to mark voters’ fingers and prevent multiple voting.

The law provides that the accredited citizens arm be given the 4th copy of the election returns precisely to enable the conduct of a parallel count.

In a letter dated September 30, 2003, NAMFREL Chairman Jose S. Concepcion, Jr. requested the COMELEC, through its Chairman Benjamin Abalos, for a ruling on the two abovementioned points by October 10, 2003 or seven months before Election Day in light of the need to prepare and train volunteers. We have received no reply from the COMELEC.

For the first time in 20 years of public service, NAMFREL will not be able to conduct its parallel count. Because of the transition into a new system of vote counting, we had hoped to receive the accreditation earlier and thus filed our application as early as January following a verbal commitment from Chairman Abalos and the COMELEC that they would act quickly on our petition when we met with them at the Manila Hotel in January of this year. Our understanding was that we could expect our accreditation for Operation Quick Count by February 14, 2003. It should be noted that with the large number of voters and precincts plus the transition to the new system of counting, time is needed for NAMFREL and the country to prepare for the 2004 Elections. Time is running out.

NAMFREL will continue as an advocate for honest and orderly elections and voter education.