OMG OMG OMG — Maling Mali Si Ex-Justice Azcuna

Yung Mali Ni Pinky OK Lang Kasi Hindi Naman Sya Lawyer

Note: Pag sinabi Davide, eto yung Francisco case. Pag sinabi Duterte eto yung desisyon na pinag uusapan.

Panoorin ang video at basahin pagtatama namin. Dahil English ang video, English din ang aming paliwanag.

Mga mali ni Azcuna

1. not more than one “impeachment proceeding” not “impeachment complaint” in one year

2. first 3 complaints were not “actually dismissed” but rather “effectively dismissed” being unacted upon at close of 19th Congress, it terminated along with other u finished business

3. first 3 complaints were not “effectively archived” but rather “actually arhived”.

4. first 3 complaints were not considered “initiated because they were “effectively dismissed” but rather SC found it impossible to determine when they initiated impeachment proceeding because the complaints were unacted upon.

5. In Francisco, “initiation of impeachment proceeding” is not starting from putting on Order of Business but rather on filing of impeachment complaint with Sec Gen

6. In Francisco, the House did not avoid submitting the first complaint of Erap but rather avoided voting on it after the CoJ already dismissed it for lack of substance and the House had to affirm it or overturn it, which was the point of “deeemed initiaged under Article 16

7. In Francisco, there were only two complaints one by Erap which was dismissed and the other passed which was the target of the SC case so there was only complaint that triggered the one-year bar rule, not 3.

8. Azcuna switched from Francisco to Duterte then declared the 3 complaints not referred to COJ were deemed initiated. He is wrong because not that the House did not refer to COJ they archived them in favor of passing the 4th complaing and then the 19th Congress closed. That day when all unfinished finished was terminated, including the 3 complaints, was when they became “effectively dismissed”. But when were they “initiated”? The SC said because it was impossible to determine it for unacted complaints they were effectively initiated on the date of filing and the one-year bar runs from this date. But the 3 complaints had some action on them — that is, when put in Order of Business — though unacted in the sense of not reaching COJ, they were “effectively initiated” on the day they were dismissed or “effectively dismissed”, which was Feb 5, 2025 so that the one-year bar of Duterte case runs from this date.

9. All these talk on “deemed initiated” were not in Duterte.

10. When first asked by Pinky whether Duterte is opposite ruling in Franscisco, he did not answer. When Pinky repeated the question, he prevaricated and repated over and over the Duterte result without mentioning Francisco. He did not know the answer. We know, there is no conflict with Franscisco but only added or clarified rules when the the one-year bar commences.

11. While “deemed initiated was never used to refer to to the 3 complaints, Azcuna was wrong when he said they were deemed initiated and dismissed when archived. See #8 on impossibility of determing when, OK let us use this term, “deemed initiated”.

12. When Pinky said the one-year bar ran when the first 3 complaint were “effective dismissed” on Feb 5, 2025, Azcuna misunderstood she meant since the 3 complaints were dismissed, you would count from the date of the 4th complaint filing at the Senate. Truthy, Azcuna is right (finally!) to run the one-yead bar from when the first 3 complaints were “effectively dismissed”.

13. Duterte case modified Francisco that if an impeachment complaint was not referred to COJ within 10 session days it is deemed referred and therefore initated. OMG! Nothing of this sort is on Duterte case. First of all, the time limit for referral to COJ is only 3 session days as the 10 session days is the time limit to putting the impeachment complaint in Order of Business by House Speaker.

14. The first mode (filed by citizen and endorsed by member or filed by member direcfly) calendared in 3 session days and referred to COJ within 10 session days. He had it reversed. And this is not the “new” ruling on Duterte case as the impeachment process did not change

Mga Mali Ni Pinky:

1. natural if you are questioning the 4th impeachment proceeding (not complaint) if it did not breach the one-year bar you have to check if the first 3 complaints (singly or collectively) initiated an impeachment proceeding.

2. In Francisco, “deemed initiated” was when COJ vote on the complaint on finding it is sufficient in substance (or later when not sufficient and House overturns) under Section 16, which was the one questioned for unconstutionality because it prolonged or delayed the “initation of impeachment proceeding from it was when endorsed to COJ (as was the first complaint by Erap).

3. The first 3 complaints were “deemed initiated” when endorsed by a congressman (more like she meant when filed with House Sec Gen). Duterte court did not, rightly, have to answer this because they were “effectively dismissed”.

4. The first 3 complaints, though received on different dates in December by House Sec Gen was not the target of Duterte SC case at all but rather the 4th complaint filed in Senate. Else, anyone thinking it the first 3 does not udnerstand why Sara filed the SC certioarari case.

5. When an impeachment complaint is endorsed to COJ, it is not “deemed initiated” but rather “actually initiated”.

6. Duterte case did not say that the impeachment complaint (not she did not use impeachment proceeding when she should have) is deemmed initated when the impeachment complaint is filed with House Sec Gen. Rather, the Francisco rule remains unchanged: file + endorse to COJ with initial action.