REJECTING the advice of her hypertension doctors to skip the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona to keep her high blood pressure in check, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago made her first appearance at the trial and made her beautiful legal mind immediately apparent.

With a few quick questions, Santiago asserted that the Chief Justice was entitled to his constitutional right to a speedy trial.  She immediately requested the prosecution and defense panels to inform the court of the witnesses and documentary evidence they planned to present to shorten the proceedings.

Chief House Prosecutor Rep. Niel Tupas began to shake his head and was quickly reprimanded.  Tupas asked for a few days to submit.  Chief defense counsel Serafin Cuevas, a retired Supreme Court justice, rattled off a list of witnesses and documentary evidence, eliciting an approving smile from Santiago.


Who causes delay?

The incident belied the contention of the prosecution that the defense was delaying the trial.  On the contrary, it seemed to indicate that it was the prosecution that was delaying the trial with its lack of preparedness.

With her clarificatory questions, Santiago also provoked the court to address the amount of evidence needed to return a verdict of guilty or not guilty.  Santiago asked for the counsels’ position.

Tupas said the prosecution believed the amount of evidence needed was substantial evidence as needed in administrative cases.  Cuevas replied that proof beyond reasonable was needed as in criminal cases because the penalty to be imposed in impeachment cases was removal from office and perpetual prohibition from holding another public office.

Santiago submitted the determination of the standard of proof to an executive session of the court.


‘Akin’ to criminal case

In a previous ruling, Enrile said he considered the needed standard of proof “akin” to a criminal case because the crimes needed to impeach are criminal in nature, like treason, bribery and graft and corruption.

Santiago’s question will now force the court to address the standard of proof they will use.

Francis Lim, a lawyer in a big law firm, says:  “Under the Constitution, the ‘Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.’ Notably, however, the Constitution and the Senate Rules on Impeachment Trials are both silent on the standard of proof when the Senate acts as the impeachment court. Neither do we have any jurisprudence on the matter.”

“The big question then is what standard of proof should the senator-judges use in deciding the Corona impeachment case?” Lim asks.


Different standards of proof

“The Senate impeachment rules provide that the rules of court, which includes the rules on evidence, shall apply suppletorily to the impeachment proceedings,” Lim says.

“The four main standards of proof under the rules of court are: (1) substantial evidence; (2) preponderance of evidence; (3) clear and convincing evidence; and (4) proof beyond reasonable doubt.

“Substantial evidence refers to such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. In common parlance, it is the kind of evidence that a reasonable man can say ‘puwede na’ (good enough)  to justify a conclusion. This is used in cases filed before administrative and quasijudicial bodies.


Preponderance of evidence

“In civil cases, the standard of preponderance of evidence is synonymous with the phrase ‘greater weight of the evidence’ or ‘greater weight of the credible evidence.’  To put it simply, the admitted evidence is weighed on the scales of justice, and judgment is rendered in favor of the side at which the scales tilt to.

“Clear and convincing evidence is a more stringent standard that requires the allegation to be proven to the firm belief or satisfaction of the trier of fact. This standard requires that the evidence must be overwhelming enough to clearly indicate the winning party. To follow the same illustration on the scales of justice, the tilt must weigh heavily in favor of a party to the case.

“Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the highest standard, which is applied in criminal cases. It requires moral certainty, or such degree of proof that produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Although absolute uncertainty is not required, the evidence must undoubtedly show to an unprejudiced mind that the accused is guilty of the acts complained of.  Again, using the scales of justice as an example, the scale must definitely and undoubtedly tilt in favor of the prosecution evidence,” Lim said.


Quantum of evidence

Lim added: “The Constitution uses the words ‘conviction’ and ‘convicted.’ Moreover, the Senate impeachment rules employ the phrases ‘plea of not guilty’ and ‘plea of guilty.”’ This seems to suggest that the standard of proof required in impeachment proceedings is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

“Some also argue that since an impeachment proceeding partakes of the nature of a criminal proceeding, proof beyond reasonable doubt is the appropriate standard of proof. Others say that the use of proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary to maintain the balance of power under the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

“On the other hand, some quarters point out that, unlike a criminal case where a person is deprived of life, liberty or property, a judgment in impeachment proceeding is limited to ‘removal from office and disqualification to hold any office....

“Still others argue that the criminal standard of proof fails to recognize that the purpose of an impeachment proceeding is to protect public interest by getting rid of public officers unfit to remain in their constitutional positions. Consequently, public interest should weigh more heavily than the interest of the individual defendant...


Middle ground

“Some argue that since an impeachment case is neither a civil nor a criminal proceeding, the standard of proof should be a middle ground between the usual civil standard (preponderance of evidence) and the criminal standard (proof beyond reasonable doubt). The appropriate standard, according to this school of thought, is clear and convincing evidence, as used in more important and specific civil cases.

“This standard has been used in the United States. According to its proponents, this intermediate standard accomplishes the purpose of an impeachment proceeding, while recognizing the need to protect the independence of a coequal branch of government by avoiding unjustified removals from office,” Lim concluded.