Impeachment Trial Is A Political Exercise

by ERNESTO T. SOLIDUM

The raging controversy watched by millions of Filipinos in the Philippines and abroad through the tri-media and online is the impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona. The Aklan Press Club Inc. invited local legal luminaries to give their valuable insight on the matter. It was held on January 28, 2012 at SOPUR Business Center, Punta Tulay, Bulwang, Numancia.

Present are New Washington Mayor Edgar Peralta, Atty. Florencio Gonzales, Atty. Christine Dela Cruz, Atty. Ronquillo C. Tolentino, Atty. Allen S. Quimpo, and Atty. Marian Ibadlit. The impeachment case is on its second week of hearing after its opening on January 16. The bases of the hearing are eight Articles of Impeachment. The prosecution panel with agreement of the defense panel has started on the No. 2 charge, the Non-disclosure of Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN).

Atty. Tolentino pointed out the legal basis for impeachment of high government officials is on the Constitution. Article 11, Sec. 2 says that the President of the Philippines, members of the Supreme Court and Constitutional bodies like Ombudsman and Commissioner of Civil Service can be removed from office for: a) culpable violation of the Constitution, b) graft and corruption, and c) betrayal of public trust.

Notable examples are impeachment of former Pres. Joseph Estrada, CJ Hilario Davide, Ombudsman Aniano Desierto, and Merceditas Gutierrez.

Atty. Gonzales noted that the present Impeachment Court does not observe the elementary rules of jurisprudence such as the absence of pre-trial, pre-marking of exhibits and pre-identification of witnesses. These are clearly amateurish and counter-productive and if not followed, they can be deemed outright inadmis-sible in any court hearing.

Mayor Peralta believes impeachment can be good or bad. Like a gun, it is good if given to a cop but bad in the hand of a thief.

The former provincial prosecutor said, it is expected that the Rules of Court is suppletory to the impeachment proceeding. Actually, the respondent has filed his SALN with the Clerk of Court and technically could not have violated the provision of RA 6713 or Code of Conduct and Ethical Standard for Public Officials. Obviously, the prosecution panel is just on fishing expedition holding into allegations and not statement of verifiable facts, Peralta stressed.

Historically, Atty. Dela Cruz pointed out, impeachment began in the 14th century in England. Later, this practice was adopted by the US. Going into modern times, US President Richard Nixon (Watergate scandal) and Pres. Bill Clinton (sex scandal) were impeached. Atty. Dela Cruz believes impeachment is not fully tested to the limit in the Philippines. Whatever the outcome, it can have positive impact on our jurisprudence and history.

Atty. Ibadlit noted the haphazard preparation of the Articles of Impeach-ment and the manner the prosecution panel presented their case. There is even no need to include the eight Articles of Impeachment if they do not have the quantum of evidence necessary to convict the respondent. In the case of US Pres. Bill Clinton, there were only two articles of impeachment and yet he was almost toppled from the US presidency.

Atty. Quimpo said that the impeachment court is quasi judicial and quasi political. Judicial because the Rules of Court is applied and political since senator judges and congressmen prosecutors are elected by the people. These politicians are judged by their constituents as to the way they conduct themselves during the impeachment trial.

Article 11 Sec. 1 of the Constitution states that public office is a public trust. All officials shall be accountable to the people with certain utmost responsibility, patriotism, and must lead modest lives.

If people lost trust in a Constitutional official, he/she can be impeached and be perpetually disqualified from holding public office. Impeachment trial is a political question and beyond the power of the Supreme Court. Impeachment Court is the people’s court and the ultimate judge is the people. SALN records of CJ Corona show big disparity between his income and he acquired assets like the high rise condominiums and prime real estate knowing that his income comes only from his salary as a member of the Supreme Court.

As part of his obligation to the people, ex-Cong. Quimpo maintains that his SALN has been fully disclosed to the public as any public official should. Obviously, what we need in these times is transparency and accountability. It is ironic that those whom we looked up to are culprits themselves.

Pres. Benigno S. Aquino III has said in various election campaign sorties of his openness to the passage of the Freedom of Info Bill. The delay, whatever the reason, spawns immeasurable problems like adopting a defective Article of Impeachment No. 2 which does not clearly define the charge, instead borders on allegation. Had the prosecution gained access beforehand, things could have proceeded smoothly. Definitely there is no need of a “shotgun” approach or overkill to convict CJ Corona. Under the law, two-thirds or 16 senator judges is required to qualify a verdict of beyond reasonable doubt to be positive.

In a landmark case involving the Department of Finance versus BIR Chief lawyer Jose Ric Cabrera charged for graft and corruption (having a salary of P26,203 per month) the Ombudsman ruled that SALN is not merely empty formality or ceremonial gesture but a cornerstone to guard against the accumulation of unexplained and ill gotten wealth.

Listening to the debate among astute politicians and practicing lawyers can be stimulating and challenging. It is amusing to hear one admits that when they talk they find it hard to stop.

Watch out for the next installment of insights into the impeachment of CJ Renato Corona. We will appreciate your own personal comments on the issue. /MP