What does 'betrayal of public trust' mean in impeach case?

MANILA, Philippines - Senators will go back to the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission to determine the constitutional definition of “betrayal of public trust” in an impeachment case before reaching a verdict in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona.

In phone interview, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, impeachment court presiding officer, said the members of the impeachment court will discuss the constitutional definition of “betraying public trust” in their caucus.

“We will go back to the discussions of the framers of the Constitution,” he said.

Enrile said they need to know what acts of a public official can be considered a “betrayal of public trust,” which was not specifically defined in the Charter.

Enrile said the prosecution did not include in their verified complaints allegations of falsification of public documents or records, bribery and even graft and corruption.

“...other high crimes, wala namang sinabing high crimes (There’s nothing about high crimes),” he said. “Falsification of public documents, or records, they did not allege.”

Enrile said the framers of the Constitution had reiterated that “betrayal of public trust” should be given the same gravity as those crimes enumerated as grounds for impeachment.

“It’s open ended,” he said.

“Framers of our Constitution said betrayal of public trust must be equated with the same gravity as those enumerated crimes as grounds for impeachment,” he said in a mix of Filipino and English, adding that getting drunk or violating traffic rules could not be considered betrayal of public trust.

Prior to the 1987 Constitution, the grounds for impeachment were treason, bribery, culpable violation of the Constitution and other high crimes. 

When the 1987 Constitution was crafted, betrayal of public trust was included in the acts that would constitute impeachable offenses.

Meanwhile, the 23 judges of the impeachment court are set to discuss also what quantum of proof will they use in determining the guilt or acquittal of Corona.

Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III said the quantum of evidence used should be the same in the disbarment proceedings against a regular lawyer.

“I think it should be the same as the quantum of evidence when you disbar a lawyer,” he said.

Beyond reasonable doubt

Corona wants the impeachment court to use “beyond reasonable doubt” as the quantum of proof in rendering judgment against him.

Ramon Esguerra, one of Corona’s lawyers, said the penalty in an impeachment case of perpetual disqualification from public office could be tantamount to reclusion perpetua in a criminal case.

“The defense’s submission is proof beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal case,” he said.

“Our position is based on the gravity of the penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification which in the scale of penalties under the Revised Penal Code is an afflictive penalty like reclusion perpetua.”

Esguerra said they hope the impeachment court will come up with a higher standard than preponderance of evidence.

“Others that have surfaced are clear and convincing evidence, preponderance of evidence or overwhelming preponderance of evidence,” he said.

Lawyer Tranquil Salvador, a defense spokesman, said the required proof should be “beyond reasonable doubt” since presiding officer Enrile has declared the impeachment proceedings as “akin to a criminal case.”

“I think we have been fairly consistent in our position because this is akin to a criminal case, and what is required is proof beyond reasonable doubt,” he said.

Salvador said there are degrees on what is called “quantum of evidence,” which means “substantial evidence.”

Salvador claimed that Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., the lead prosecutor, had said that Corona’s case would be decided using the “proof beyond reasonable doubt” as a measure.

Meanwhile, the defense will ask the impeachment court to suppress evidence pertaining to Corona’s bank records at Philippine Savings Bank, the source of a photocopy of the signature cards of which are unknown.

Salvador said the motion will be on the exclusionary rule in the presentation of evidence that were unlawfully obtained.

“They cannot hide behind the Constitution, which says that (exclusionary rule) is limited only to searches and seizures because the provision says of whatever nature.”

Salvador cited the statement of Fr. Joaquin Bernas that a subpoena should be limited to relevant matters.

“If the root is highly questionable, the rest of the evidence on bank records, all other evidence that would be an offshoot of that questionable evidence is excluded under the concept of the fruit of the poisonous tree,” he said. 

President Aquino sees the conviction of Corona based on the evidence presented by the House prosecution team at the Senate impeachment trial that is “largely a political process.”

The President said the prosecutors “have done really very well” as they “managed to unearth other alleged properties that are not part of the statement of assets, liabilities and net worth” of Corona even if they experienced difficulties in collating evidence because the magistrate’s SALNs were hidden in a vault.

“They have unearthed cash which is significantly different from that which was stated under oath in the SALN. So on that basis, given the difficulties, (they did well),” he said at the sidelines of the ceremonial turnover of housing units for the military and police personnel in Trece Martires City in Cavite last Friday.

The President said the evidence presented to back charges under Article 2 or the discrepancies in Corona’s SALNs and actual list of properties and bank accounts would already warrant a conviction.

Aquino said certain officials were required to file their SALNs and Corona swore to “something that seems to be at the very least incomplete if not (false).”

He said the P3 million declared by Corona was quite far from P30 million discovered in his bank accounts aside from the properties. – With Aurea Calica