First, the CJ’s responses, in certain cases are more detailed than the allegations she is responding to, and in some cases, she claims the petitioners did not provide evidence to support their allegations.

This raises two pertinent issues as follows:

1. Her wrong impression that the initial petitions must have disclosed evidence to support all the allegations therein. This is wrong because all that is required in the petitions is sufficient allegation that may be convincing to the mind that the CJ has a question to answer. The right forum for evidence to play out is at the committee hearing; and

Taste the Goodness: EL Blends All-Natural Cold-Pressed Juices

2. With the detailed response of the CJ at this stage, what else would she say at the actual hearing by the investigative committee?

Secondly, if the framers thought the determination of a prima facie case is a technical legal burden, then it is not expected that the President and the Council of State may necessarily have the competence to discharge that burden. This is perhaps, the reason why article 146 (6) requires that the petition be sent straight to the investigative committee, which shall have two Supreme Court Justices, with all the competence and experience to deal with all the legal issues in the petition.

Let’s remember that in the case of the removal of Justices other than the Chief Justice, _prima facie_ case is required, and is expected to be determined by the Chief Justice, who is a judge and would have all the competence to make that finding. Article 146 (3) says as soon as a President receives a petition against any Justice other than the CJ, the President must refer the petition to the CJ for him or her to determine whether the allegations establish a _prima facie_ case.

There is a lot to learn from this case.

Eric DELANYO Alifo, Esq.