Post on 04-Apr-2018
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
1/21
27 February 2012
Miss CLARE MARIA FRANCESCA CAGURANGAN y DE ALBAN
My dear Clare :
Re: IMPEACHABLE IMPEACHMENT
We write to you who, being the youngest at 4 months
old, are the least likely to overtake us in wisdom and, therefore,
the most in need of guidance. By the time you become literate we
shall have passed the thresholds of our twin missions : one, todelay our death ; two, to use that blessed delay to process our life
in faithful imitation of Christ.
Dear Maria, your Nurse-mother, our daughter, will tell
you that her paternal grandfather, her father and his siblings (her
five tios and two tias) were/are all full-fledged lawyers and that
one of her said tias is qualified to take the Bar Exams and is
running a school for the poor and the underprivilegrd.
Dear Francesca, your mother and College -Instructor
father will tell you that among your close kin are School Teachers;
Deans; School Administrators; Civil, Electrical, Electronics,
Aeronautical and Nautical Engineers; College Professors;
Physicians; Nurses; Farmers; Labour Leaders; Working
Housewives; Priests; Nuns; Dentists; Architects; Bank Clerks;
Judges; Government Officers; Priest -Monk Abbot. Among your
other relatives are much of the same, plus other Lawyers.Commerce, Law, Theology, Philosophy, Sociology, Graduate and
College students amongst your kin .
It has now become our duty to answer your future
doubts: So what had they done in such troubled times of
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
2/21
challenge to their professional and occupational
disciplines?
And so, this paper.
It is a historical fact that on 16 July 1935 the Holy Pope(PopePius XI), as the Supreme Head of predominantly-Catholic
Philippines, proclaimed the Lady of Guadalupe as the Patroness of
this Christian nation ( on 12 September 1942, Pope Pius XII
proclaimed the Lady of the Immaculate Conception as the Primary
Universal Marian Patroness of the Philippines) .
As we are wont to do we write this paper with a prior
prayer through the Blessed Virgin : Lord, please speak through
us.
It has been said that The voice of the people is the
voice of GOD. The Philippine Constitution is a recording of the
voice of the ratifying Filipino people. The Constitution, the Filipino
concerned, must therefore be the voice of GOD.
It is also a fact that impeachment-trial witnesses take
an oath to uphold the truth, praying : SO HELP ME GOD.
The PREAMBLE of the Philippine Constitution, xx
Imploring the aid of Almighty God xxx commits this country
to faithful observance of the Rule of Law as a policy of
governance.
RULE OF LAW
Thousands have gathered to rally support and
respect for this Rule of Law. Thousands have gathered to rallysupport for the timeliness and fairness of their monetary/title
claims with their employers and landlords.
It is primarily for the first-described thousands that we
(together with our families, friends, relatives and those within our
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
3/21
demonstrable sphere of professional and occupational influences)
offer this representation of a common sentiment : Ours is a
government of laws NOT of government officials!
We believe that the Constitution is a legal documentand that its provisions ,including that on Impeachment, should
therefore be discussed on legal grounds.
It is respectfully submitted that IMPEACHMENT , as a
constitutionally-set disciplinary measure, is a political issue but
ONLY because it is initiated by POLITICANS. The impeachment
trial is conducted also by politicians but politicians who are
automatically vested with the additional role of judges of a very
special court and not merely as participants in a political/partisanconference. During trial they are viewed as, perforce,
conducting themselves with the cold-neutrality of judicial
magistrates without, however, shedding off their
collective political wisdom as the supreme-setter of
national policies that should, nevertheless, be in
accordance with the Constitution.
There is no Constitutional or statutory provision
that authorizes the suspension of the Bill of Rights ,
especially its DUE PROCESS intendments, upon the
institution of impeachment proceedings, political as
they may seem.
We feel called upon to register our anger at ournagging helplessness watching, aloof, the seeming validation ofnot only fishing expedition but dynamite fishing!
We would have opted to address, officially, this paper
to the Honourable Supreme Court but we are, presently, without
sufficient wherewithal and sustaining boldness ( given medical
requirements) to neutralize the seeming vindictive impulses of
those in power. Instead of focusing adversarial attention to our
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
4/21
selves, we invite concentration on theories, as written in cadence
with the drums of our conscience.
This paper wishes for the eventual declaration
of the nullity of the on-going impeachment proceedingsand immediate stoppage of the same on grounds of abuse
of discretion amounting to lack, or in excess, of
jurisdiction resulting in damage not only to the
Respondent Chief Justice, and the majesty of the law
symbolized by his office, but to the entire Government,
The Filipino People and, in effect, to the State.
We would like the Chief Justice to somehow know that
we wish for the reader to realize that we mention him in thispersonal letter only as a recognizable, admirable fellowman yet a
personal stranger. And may it be so known.
Admirable, dear Maria, because thrice upon a time he
reminded us of your Lolo Isaac who was fond of confronting us
with a quote: If a man offends you in public with his rudeness ,
punish him with the obvious superiority of your conduct!
We read somewhere that a true gentleman is: one
who never deliberately causes pain and one who fulfils his
obligation in favour of another who is not in a position to demand
fulfilment of that obligation.
It has always been our daily ambition to be
gentlemanly. We wish to be a gentleman of the Filipino -for the
enlightenment of our countrymen.
STATEMENT AND OFFER OF
PERTINENT ASSUMPTIONS
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
5/21
A. It is the intent of the Constitution to preserve and nurture
the independence of the offices of impeachable officers by
protecting the security of tenure of the incumbents.
B. Security of Tenure is protected by making it difficult to
remove the incumbent impeachable officers who may be
ousted from office only on impeachment for, and
CONVICTION of, culpable violation of the Constitution,
treason, bribery and graft and corruption and OTHER HIGH
CRIMES or betrayal of public trust. (Emphasis ours)
C. Being in the nature of crimes or offenses for any of which the
impeached officer may be convicted, such impeachment
grounds must be strictly construed as having distinct
elements that set them apart from one another.
D. It is the clear intent of the Constitution to give
extraordinary protection to Supreme Court Justicesconsistent with the extraordinary nature of their
function and mission as supreme implementer of the Rule
of Law and also consistent with the assurance of their fealty
assumable from their entry-credentials ofmoral and
academic excellence ; as in fact it is a measure of this
assurance that while a Justice may automatically qualify to
be President or President of the Senate the latter two may
not necessarily qualify to become a Judge, much less aJustice.
E. It is the intent of the Constitution to protect and nurture the
separation, and balance, of power among the three (3) great
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
6/21
Departments by maintaining their independence from each
other
STATEMENT OF THE PREDICATE GROUNDS
CONSTITUTING GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK, OR IN EXCESS, OF
JURISDICTION
A. THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT COURT IS CONDUCTING TRIAL
UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF RULES ISSUED NOT IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
B. THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT COURT IS CONDUCTING TRIAL
ON AN IMPEACHMENT GROUND (BETRAYAL OF PUBLICTRUST) NOT APPLICABLE TO THE RESPONDENT CHIEF
JUSTICE.
C. THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL ABETS COLLUSION BETWEEN
THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT AND THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES IN THEIR VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE
OF SEPARATION-OF-POWERS AMONG THE THREE GREATDEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENT.
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
7/21
DISCUSSIONS/ARGUMENTS
Re: Ground A
The senate impeachment court is conducting
trial under the authority and guidance of rulesissued not in compliance with the requirements of
the Constitution:
Section 3, Article XI of the Philippine Constitution
Provides:
x x x
(8) The congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachmentto effectively carry out the purpose of this section.
It is true that the Senate issued Resolution No 890 for it to
embody Senate rules of impeachment. It is also true that the
House of Representatives issued its own impeachment rules.
Still, Article VI of the said Constitution provides:
Section I. the legislative power shall be vested in the
Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a senate and ahouse of representatives xx.
It seems clear that when the Constitution uses the words
the congress shall promulgate its rules xx (underscoring
ours) the Constitution refers to congress as a whole and not to its
separate or individual components especially because of the word
its which does not refer to either of the houses only.
It is humbly submitted that the separate resolutions of bothhouses of Congress are not the its rules Congress itself should
promulgate - the Senate is only one of two components of
Congress, the House of Representatives being the other half. The
separate acts of these distinct components are not the act of
Congress, one of the three Great Departments. This disparity is
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
8/21
clear from the fact that the two resolutions do not contain on their
faces an intent to seek mutual concurrences.
It is humbly submitted that a mere joint- resolution of
concurrence by both houses, covering their respectiveresolutions, indicates post-fact adoptions that could only mean
accommodative assent to separate and, therefore, exclusionary
deliberations that do not reflect a truly unified sense of Congress
rule-making as one. For instance as presently worded the
resolutions seem to make it a mere ministerial duty on the part of
the Senate to accept for trial any impeachment complaint from
the Lower House whether or not such complaint has substantial
infirmities.
A strict interpretation of the constitutional provisions on
impeachment is in order since the Respondent is entitled to a
strict interpretation in his favour, impeachment trial being closely
akin to substantive criminal law and criminal proceedings, given
the following:
- The clear intent of the Constitution to make
removal of a justice difficult in order to preserve
security of tenure.
For its guaranty if independence.
- Use by the Constitution of the words
impeachment for and CONVICTION of, xxx
(emphasis ours).
- Use by the Constitution of specific crimes and
other high crimes in four (4) of the six
(6) grounds for impeachment.
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
9/21
There seems to be agreement on the opinion that an
impeachment trial is not clearly criminal, civil or
administrative; sui generis, they say. If so, dearFrancesca, then with more reason that Congress should
have resolved for its rules to have a distinctive
impeachment character with distinct procedural and
evidential requirements and parameters.
Whether or not the Senate rules guarantee effective
implementation of the Constitutional provisions on
impeachment suggests need for judicial clarification since
such rules do not provide answers to/on issues relating to
probable cause, essential elements of the impeachable
offenses and quantum of evidence sufficient to support
conviction. Such inherent inadequacies impact negatively on
any respondents right to due process.
What seem so glaringly unfair are: the proscription against
objection, by the defence, to the active interrogation ofsenator-judges no matter how biasedly monopolizing or
monopolizingly-bias such questionings may be; the
indiscriminate offer of proof for undetermined elements of
any impeachment ground (and therefore the whimsical
appreciation of the existence of such elements).
Re: Ground B
The Senate Impeachment
Court is conducting trial on an Impeachment
Ground (Betrayal of Public Trust) not applicable
to the Respondent Chief Justice.
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
10/21
It is respectfully submitted that for any of the grounds for
impeachment to be applicable to any impeachable officer suchground should have a distinct, independent, legal
existence determined by the presence of unique elements
that set such grounds apart from one another.
It seems the theory of the impeachment prosecutors that the
honourable Chief Justice committed Betrayal of Public Trust,
supposedly implied from the constitutional /statutory provisions
that Public Office is a Public Trust, when he supposedly made
inaccurate entries in his Statements of Assets Liabilities And
Networth (SALN).
It should be noted well that the Respondent Chief Justice
became an impeachable officer not by direct action of the
people but by recommendation of the Judicial and Bar Council
and the adoption by the President of such recommendation with
the appointment of respondent as Chief Justice
We submit that it is only to elected impeachable
officers, the Presidentand vice-President, that the ground
betrayal of public trust applies because it is only to them that a
unique element (EXPRESS TRUST) may be appreciable and it is
only on/to them that the public (the electorate) reposes/gives, by
voting, their trust directly, openly and publicly.
If EXPRESS TRUST is considered in relation to the Chief
Justice we would be assuming as valid an unreasonable theory-that at the time the public voted for the appointing power (the
President) the voters knew who the President would appoint as
Chief Justice. Speculation as regards the Members of the Judicial
and Bar Council would fetch a worse assumption.
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
11/21
The table hereunder shows that if applied to appointed
impeachable officers the ground of betrayal of public trust
would have no appreciable unique essential elements and
,therefore, may not be a distinct ground since it has no distinct
element that sets it apart from the other four (4) grounds:
Grounds forImpeachment
Common EssentialElement
Unique EssentialElements
i. CulpableViolation oftheconstitution
i. Implied Trust(Publicoffice is apublic
Trust)
i. Elements/actsconstitutingviolations ofprovisions ofthe
Constitutioncommitted intheperformanceof dutiesunder theConstitution
ii. Treason ii. same- i. Elements ofTreasonunder the
Revised PenalCode, asamended(RPC))
ii. Bribery iii. Same- iii. Elements ofBribery underthe RPC, asamended.
iv.Graft and
Corruption
v. same- iv. Elements of acts
of Graft andCorruptionunder RA3019.
v. Other HighCrimes
v.-same- v. Elements of crimes under theRPC, as amended
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
12/21
and Special PenalLaws as grave as
Treason, Bribery andGraft and Corruption.
vi.Betrayal ofPublic Trust
vi.-same- vi. Expresstrust(present onlyas regardselectiveimpeachableofficers)
It is a further demonstration of the soundness of this
argument (that betrayal of public trust does not apply to the
respondent Chief Justice) that even if the respondent admitted
having falsified his SALNs his exposure would only be for liability
for the crime of PERJURY which is not a ground for impeachment
even if violation of implied trust is automatically appreciated as
an element of PERJURY.
To assert that the Chief Justice, an appointed impeachable
officer, may be charged for Betrayal of Public Trust on the basis
of violation of implied trust, and therefore of its implied
betrayal is to assume that he may be charged for such ground
on the basis of any and all predicate crime/crimes (Malicious
Mischief, Unjust vexation, Aiding Suicide, Less Serious Physical
Injuries, Traffic Violations, Alarms and Scandal, etc). Absurdly, it
is humbly submitted, in derogation of the protective intent of theConstitution. It is respectively submitted that IMPLIED
BETRAYAL OF IMPLIED PUBLIC TRUST could not have been
intended by the Constitution to have parity of evil with the
adjectival other HIGH crimes, especially as regards a
Justice of the Supreme Court.
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
13/21
In other words if Betrayal of Public Trust is used as
an impeachment ground without any unique element
other than implied trust than the other impeachment
grounds ( treason, bribery, etc) are totally useless as a
total superfluity. The Constitution, the most sacred law ofthe land , was certainly not meant to be a receptacle of
verbal wastage and sanctimonious absurdity.
Still, even if we assume ad arguendo only, that IMPLIED
TRUST alone is a sufficient unique ground then such uniqueness
should refer to the CJs duties peculiar to his office. But could the
public be said to have knowledge of what they entrust to the CJ
when it seems clear that the average Filipino has absolutely very
little or no knowledge of the CJs duties? How can the ordinary
Filipino be betrayed by somebody whose official existence and
whose duties are hardly known to the former. It seems logical to
assume that for betrayal to assume the level of evil of a high
crime the same must be one that is consciously and commonly
perceived by the public in relation to a trust the nature of which is
known to the public as peculiarly - pertaining to the impeachable
officers office. The publics ignorance or lack of consciousness
of respondents supposed betrayal is demonstrated by the fact
that prior to the impeachment complaint that was filed by the
Lower House (and not by the people) there was no public outcry
or noises of discontent by the people against respondents
supposed BETRAYAL. What is clear is that marchers who feel
betrayed are party-litigants in a civil case.
The Prosecutors may invoke their representation of the people
but the former are voted into office for the purpose oflegislation not for prosecution, and this assumed
dysfunction is shown especially so in this case where
the complaint was not initiated by public clamour, nor by a
private person under oath, but by the Prosecutors
themselves who, in fact, are still gathering evidence
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
14/21
hoping to utilize the Senate as a watercraft for their
fishing expedition! What is happening is that the
Prosecutors are trying to use the Senatecourt to gather
evidence to yet convince the people that they were
betrayed in connection with a trust they hardly know of!This has the sequential logicality of putting the socks
after the shoes.!!
It seems ridiculously unfair to make much of the CJs
supposedly-perjured SALNs when the preparation of the same is
not a duty peculiar or unique to a Justice; the ordinary
government personnel prepares and submits his SALN too, and
such is a duty set by statute-based revisable regulatory
Implementing Rules and Regulations not by the Constitution.
Prosecutors reference to ill-gotten wealth, represented by
supposed bank deposits not reported in respondents SALNs, has
no relevance to Betrayal of Public Trust" simply because
possession of unexplained, and therefore presumably ill-gotten,
wealth is neither a crime nor a publicly-presumed offense.
There is no law that requires any person to explain
his possession of wealth, no matter how impressively-
great it can be, unless he is brought to court in a forfeiture trial
under RA 1379 which is properly initiated by the Office of the
Solicitor General. The forfeiture, assuming it is finally ordered, is
not predicated on the commission of a crime/ crimes as the
source of wealth but on mere failure to explain legitimacy of the
source of such wealth. A respondent, who happens to be an
impeachable officer may, driven by personal reasons,
refuse to explain yet, nevertheless, his waiver ofpossessory right, resulting from such refusal to shoulder
the burden of explaining, cannot/ may not legally be a
predicate ground for his impeachment, such failure to
explain not being a crime or a scandalous offense(Please
note that jurisprudence says that impeachable officers
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
15/21
may not be investigated for any crime during their
incumbency).
It should now be clear that for presumption of ill-gotten
wealth to be a predicate for an impeachable ground (assuming,ad arguendo only, that betrayal of public trust is applicable in this
case) such presumption should exist at the time of the Complaint
which is legally impossible because such presumption may be
ruled as existing only in forfeiture proceedings which
were not, and may not at this stage be, conducted.
In fact the non-disclosure of bank deposits, dollar or peso,
could be explained by accommodative bank-transactions where
bank accounts are used by depositors (who really own the money
deposits) other than the registered owner of such accounts. It
then goes without saying that the account-owner may not
disclose such funds as his own because in reality they are not.
Re Ground C
Violation of the Principle of Separation of Powers.
That the Executive Department and the House of
Representatives are passionately working together for the ouster
of the Chief Justice seems clear from the following:
1. In seeming total disregard of the ordinary Filipinos
sensitivity to public display of official courtesy the President,
delivering his Inaugural Address, totally ignored thepresence of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In effect
the President sent a signal that his policy of governance
guarantees less-than-awe and selective respect for the office
of the Chief Justice (CJ). All televised.
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
16/21
2. Speaking before high-ranked participants and guests in an
official summit on law and justice, the President expressed
his implied objections to the legitimacy of the CJs tenureand to alleged decisional inconsistencies of the Supreme
Court. He referred to a midnight appointment as though it
were not an issue already decided with finality by the
Highest Court. All televised.
3. This impeachment case appears to have emerged not as the
culmination of a long-developing, certainly not spontaneous,
clamour of the people for truth and justice but rather as a
studied show of party-support for the antecedent
confrontational acts of the President.
4. The President publicly explained that the ouster of a
Representative from the chairmanship of a HouseCommittee was a party-decision. The ousted Representative
happened to have refused to sign the impeachment
complaint. Televised.
5. The House of Representatives used as a basis for its
impeachment complaint the TRO issued by the Supreme
Court upholding Congressional Representative GMAs rightto travel (guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution and
Art.13 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
Rights); and the House did so at a time when the Supreme
Court was confronted with the alleged contumacy of the
Justice Secretarys conduct in defiance of the TRO and with
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
17/21
the Highest Courts duty to defend its independence. This
created in the mind of this writer and others that there are
endeavours to project advance explanations for future
failures prominent of which is the looming probable
failure to explain contempt of Court by the ExecutiveDepartment. Pertinent events televised.
6. A Malacaan spokesperson had risen to explain a personal
real-estate wealth of the Lead Prosecutor who had verbally
demonized the Respondent CJ whom the former then tried to
exorcize with his opening speech, invoking the Almighty,
even before the merest mote of evidence had been
submitted against the respondent CJ; in total, flagrant
disregard of the Constitution and its guaranty of
presumption of innocence in favour of the CJ. There seems
here to be no passion for truth; except an obsession for the
removal of the CJ from office, with the House probably so
confident of their trivialization of the CJ s rights to due
process that, self-fortified by one-track enthusiasm, they
assume that the event will happen despite the cavalier OJT
(On-the-job -Training) efforts of the Prosecutors. Televised.
7. Malacaan has used the Media to explain the shortcomings
of the Prosecutors. In fact last 15 February newspapers
reported that Malacaan asserted the authenticity of
Prosecution-presented bank records supposedly testified to
as illegally-disclosed and possibly bogus. And yet the issue
was/is still being debated upon in the Impeachment Court!!!
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
18/21
8. The BIR Commissioner publicly announced her intention to
conduct probe on the financial status of the CJ even in the
pendency of the impeachment trial, thus
impliedly/effectively warning all and assuring the
Prosecutors that she intended to gather damaging evidenceagainst the CJ. The Commissioner did not express her intent
to investigate other impeachable officers -a seeming
indifference to the equal-protection clause of the
Constitution. The BIR is under the Executive Department.
Televised
9. And again the President, on February 16, using power-pointpresentation (Guilty As I See It), argued, before an
audience of students and government officers, his conclusion
that the respondent CJ deserved to be removed from office
on the basis of evidence (supposed bank records showing
deposits of amounts much larger than those reflected in the
CJs SALNs) submitted in the impeachment trial , all even
before such pieces of evidence were/are still to be declared
admissible . kailangan pa bang tanungin kung impeachableoffense itong ginawa niya? .Televised. And yet the
issue is still being debated upon in the Impeachment Court.
10. And, recently, newspapers report the Presidents
supposedly-declared sense that a ruled-out hearsay evidence
from the Secretary of Justice should nevertheless be admitted as
competent evidence.
We may not appreciate the supposed righteousness of themuch-invoked crusade against graft and corruption to justify
such seeming lack of respect for the rule of law (violation of
the principle of separation of powers by openly siding with the
prosecutors; public declaration of guilty-verdict against the
respondent despite the Constitutional presumption of the
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
19/21
respondents innocence ) especially because such crusade is
not exclusive and certainly not upon the inducements of
novelty, the same having been officialised as early as 17
August 1960 upon the approval of the Anti-Graft Law ( from a
Bill reportedly authored by Mr DIOSDADO P. MACAPAGAL,former President of the Republic).
In the pulpits; in the columns of the press; in the
classrooms: priests, pastors, mentors and pundits warn us
that for an act to be truly good it should have two
ingredients :(1)It is the right thing to do and (2) it is the right
way to do it. A drive against corruption is the right thing todo. But are we doing it the right way. It has been asked :
May we right a wrong by another wrong.
My dear Maria,
In the hierarchy of social evils, what can be more
contagiously-corrupting, especially to the young, than
a national leaders public display of seeming lack of
respect for the Constitution and, therefore, of therule of law.
Lack of respect , it is humbly and respectfully
submitted, is the common fundamental element of
all crimes. We repeat : lack of respect is the common
basic element of all crimes!
STATEMENT OF ADHERENCE
TO THE RULE OF LAW
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
20/21
We believe that impeachment trials are not simply
political; they may be political in their initiation but judicial in
terms of their proper disposition.
We may not be moved by the grandeur or pettiness ofthe posturing of any involved in this impeachment trial. We
believe that no one is above the law. But there is
something higher than that law -its judicious
interpretation by the Constitutionally-authorized.
We mark with favour a Senator who suggested
that the respondent Chief Justice should be entitled
to the presumption of innocence as well as to the
presumption ofhonour. The irony is : did thereminder have to come from a soldier among
honourable ,learned, leading women and men?! If we
imagine that it was a reaching-out between former
friends or foes, such was indeed a beautifully-
nagging paradox!
It is in this context that we hereby offer our total reliance on
the redeeming, exclusionary innate goodness of man. History willjudge the Senators judgment not on the basis of any clever
reliance on the convenient political wisdom of garnering more
votes but on their capacity to set progressive national policies,
for bettering times, and to enlighten the Filipino and protect him
from himself. The Rule of Law must prevail ! SO HELP US GOD.
Dear Francesca,
We respectfully submit this, all for AlmightyGodAlways!!
Lovingly yours in imitation of Christ ,
Lolo bob
Sampaloc, Metro Manila for Cagayan Valley
7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment
21/21