A simple question by Sen. Chiz Escudero has triggered the Senate Impeachment Court to issue a landmark ruling to clarify shotgun charges lumped by House prosecutors in one impeachment article, a violation of their own rules.

Asserting “confusion” over the shotgun scattershot allegations  of the House impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Renato Corona, Sen. Francis (“Chiz”) Escudero asked the House prosecutors to clarify the interlocking criminal acts contained in one of the eight articles of impeachment.

Escudero, a lawyer, pleaded: “Please explain in your memorandum. Explain and guide us. Is it needed that all the three issues have to be separate acts before we vote on a conviction? Is it two or three?” Escudero asked.

He was referring to Article 2 of the impeachment complaint which stated that Corona failed to publicly disclose his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) that is required by law of all government officials and employees.

“Article 2 accuses the Chief Justice of three separate acts. The two were not even mentioned in the title. Guide us on how we vote. All the three have to be proved before we vote on conviction?” Escudero asked.

To banish the haze of confusion, the impeachment court had to call an executive session after Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago pressured the House prosecutors to defend their apparent breach of the legal norm that each article must allege only one crime.

The incident brought to full public view the criticism that the House had rushed the impeachment complaint for reasons still to be explained fully.  The defence has claimed that the impeachment complaint suffered fatal defects because it did not fulfill  strict constitutional requirements.

Enrile’s view

In a landmark opening statement that legal experts say will surely be part of law school curricula in the future, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile defined his personal view on the “quantum of evidence” required for acquittal or conviction.  The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote (16) to convict.

Enrile said:  “As jurors, it is our obligation and responsibility to closely and diligently examine the evidence and the facts to be presented before us, to determine whether such evidence and facts sufficiently and convincingly support the charges, and ultimately, to decide the fate of no less than the Chief Justice of the Highest Court of the land, and the head of a co-equal branch of our government.”

Elaborating on his view during the trial, Enrile said impeachment was “akin” to a criminal case because the crimes alleged in impeachment are all criminal crimes.  This would mean that Enrile’s personal yardstick will require evidence close to “proof beyond reasonable doubt” needed for conviction in criminal cases.

Constitutional process

Strict legal procedures are prescribed by the Constitution to ensure due process and protect the rights of the accused.

A conviction by the Senate results in the removal from office of the impeached official and perpetual disqualification from holding another public office. 

After removal, the official may still be prosecuted for crimes in a regular court without violating a constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, or being tried for the same offence twice.

The Philippine Constitution adopted its provisions on impeachment from the US, according to Carmelo V. Sison and Florin T. Hilbay, co-editors of the book “Impeachment Q&A” published by the University of the Philippines Law Complex in 2000.

Limiting power

“In the United States, the framers of the Constitution incorporated a provision for impeachment to prevent the President from becoming too powerful,” the authors said. 

“They limited his authority and gave Congress the means to keep him within constitutional limits by establishing a mechanism for his peaceful removal from office.”

The authors cautioned: “However, they saw to it that this (power) may not be used readily to oust a President (and other impeachable officials) from office simply because of power politics.  Impeachment under the Constitution requires fairness and adherence to constitutional standards.”

The authors added: “(B)ecause this is a trial, the Senate must observe due process and respect the rights of the officer impeached.”

Relax the rules?

Reacting to an appeal made by House Chief Prosecutor Niel Tupas for the Senate court to relax the rules, Fr. Ranhilio Aquino, dean of the San Beda Graduate School of Law, was flabbergasted:

“If the rules are the agreed norms of rationality, does this amount to relaxing on the demands of rationality?  I hope not, although given all that I have seen these past months, rationality does not rank high on our list of priorities! “ Fr. Aquino wrote in a newspaper column.

“There are rules of stylized courtroom combat that can indeed be relaxed.  Even leading questions may be tolerated, depending in great measure on the witness’ intelligence.  But rules that go to the very heart of proof or that keep the playing field level, these should not be relaxed. 

“In fact, if rules are relaxed at all, they should be relaxed in favor of the respondent, not of the prosecution, this on account of two principles: the presumption of innocence that anyone charged with an offence enjoys; and second, the rule of reason that the burden of proof lies with him who makes an assertion.”

‘Political considerations’

Analyzing the impeachment process, the respected constitutional law expert Fr. Joaquin Bernas, who co-wrote the present Constitution as a member of President Cory’s Constitutional Commission in 1987, has this to say of the dual political/judicial nature of impeachment:

“The decision will be arrived at by a partisan body, Congress, whose decisions in crucial matters are often dictated by considerations other than legality.... How will the Senate vote?  Whether in the House or in the Senate, political consideration can dictate the vote.”

The senator-judges may yet emerge from the trial with a more balanced view of the impeachment process.  More, perhaps, along the lines of Fr. Joaquin Bernas’s constitutionally correct theoretical ideal: that impeachment should be a political and legal process as well as a just and constitutional one. 

There is no law that says it cannot be all of the above.