Credible outcome necessary

There is no question that the impeachment trial by the Senate seating as an impeachment court is a political rather than a judicial process. It is a political process in the sense that the people, the body politic, participate in the proceedings. But it must be pointed out that such participation is not directly exercised but done through their chosen representatives who in this case are the Senators. In other words, it is not the people themselves who try the case and conduct the proceedings; it is not the people who will render the decision by directly casting their votes for or against the acquittal or conviction of the impeached public official like what they do in a plebiscite or referendum. The Senators are the ones who conduct the proceedings, rule on questions that may crop up during the trial, and ultimately vote on the conviction or acquittal of the official charged.

And in conducting the trial or hearing the case, the Senators also observe and follow a set of rules. These rules are designed to assure that the truth will be determined in a fair, reasonable, orderly and expeditious manner consistent with the “due process of law” guaranteed by our constitution. These rules determine the competency of the witnesses to testify on particular facts alleged in the complaint or answer, the relevance, credibility or weight of their testimonies, as well as the relevance, admissibility and weight of the documentary evidence presented. They are   patterned after the rules used by the courts in the trials of cases filed before them. Hence it can be said that the impeachment proceedings is also a quasi-judicial process where the decision is based not on popular sentiment but on competent, clear and convincing evidence or evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as enough to prove that the official is guilty of the charge.

This reminder as to the real nature of the impeachment process is worth reiterating now lest the people be misled into believing that they are the real jurors in this case; that if they disagree or do not like the decision of the Senate, they have the right to once more massively assemble in the streets for another people power uprising similar to Edsa II when Erap was forced to leave Malacañang, an act that was construed as a resignation from his position. In fact, reports of a “Plan B” are now circulating where the prime movers of Edsa II are again organizing another “people power” if Corona is acquitted contrary the wishes of the powers that be in Malacañang which are orchestrating the impeachment moves.

Before proceeding with their plan the organizers must be reminded that Edsa II cannot be used as a precedent in this case because the official involved here is the Chief Magistrate of the Supreme Court belonging to an independent, non-political branch of government, unlike in Edsa II where the official involved was the President of the Republic, the Chief Executive of a political branch of government directly elected by the people. Indeed Edsa II, like Edsa I is considered as a legitimate political exercise because it is directed against a political official elected by the people themselves. If people power will be used against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or against any member of the Judiciary for that matter, it will definitely damage beyond repair the very democratic institution considered as the last bulwark of democracy mainly task with ensuring that ours is a government of laws and not of men.

Of course it is not the judiciary but only a member of the judiciary, the SC Chief Justice, who is the subject of the impeachment charges here. Hence, as repeatedly argued, it is not the judiciary that will be damaged by this move. The problem however with this argument is that seven out of the eight articles of impeachment involve alleged flip flopping decisions and decisions favoring former president Arroyo rendered by the SC where Corona only concurs with the majority. So it is not only Corona but the entire SC which is under fire here and will suffer irreparable damage if this “Plan B” is carried out. The damaging repercussions of this move therefore far outweigh its alleged aim of cleansing our judiciary. If our judiciary indeed needs some cleansing, adequate administrative remedies within the existing legal framework are still available for this purpose.

A reminder of the true nature of the impeachment proceedings is also necessary and timely at this stage in view of the disturbing developments in the trial where the process is shaping up into a battle of press releases obviously designed to win the hearts and minds of the populace. Apparently, a large majority of our countrymen even including some lawyers, members of the media and several Senators-non-lawyers are not so well versed in the technical rules applicable to the presentation and admission of evidence here.

So it must be pointed out that the process involves the presentation of proofs of the ultimate facts   alleged in the articles of impeachment. The testimonies now being heard and the documents marked during the hearing are not yet proofs of such facts. They still have to be evaluated as to weight and admissibility. And the Senators are the ones tasked to do so when all the evidence are already offered and admitted. Thus those “facts” now coming out and being aired by both sides are not actually the facts proven but only conclusions of facts made by the prosecution and the defense. Media should be more careful in airing them lest the people come to conclusions contrary to the ultimate findings of the Impeachment court.

One thing is clear however. Like the other branches of our government, our judiciary also needs cleansing. The impeachment of Corona may indeed trigger such cleansing if it is perceived as fair, just and reasonable because it is based on evidence obtained in accordance with the established rules.

E-mail us at [email protected]