On Impeachment NIEL DEFENSOR Part I I keep my silence for weeks because of heavy workload and the incoming examination

in the school of law. However, after being ask repeatedly by some friends regarding the Impeachment Telenovela , I am now expressing some of my thoughts on the impeachment proceedings. Judicial Power and the Senate as an Impeachment Court Liberal Party senators are correct when they said that they are not equal with the Supreme Court when the Senate take cognizance of the impeachment case of Chief Justice Renato Corona. Art. XI, sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution states that; The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. This is an express and clear mandate giving the Senate authority to act as a special court for this specific case. It is on its own, a court equal to none. However, Judicial Power was given to the Supreme Court under Art. VIII, Section 1, of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which states that: Sec. 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. The second paragraph of this section undoubtedly gives the Supreme Court the power to take cognizance and settle any actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. Hence, any person being persecuted by the government may seek protection from the Supreme Court, and to court is duty bound to give remedy to person whose rights are violated, being a Chief Justice or plain balut vendor in the street. This is to safeguard any citizen from the overwhelming power of government which tends to abuse or expands its scope of authority. By this provision, the Supreme Court as may exercise its power of judicial reviewer if and when the Senate Acting as Impeachment Court transgressed the rights of any impeachable officer. Importance of the Supreme Court Power of Judicial Review The Constitution is a definition of the powers of government. Who is to determine the nature, scope and extent of such powers? The Constitution itself has provided for the instrumentality of the judiciary as the rational way. And when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other department but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them. The Power of Judicial Review is not a product of this impeachment proceeding against Chief Justice Corona, or any of his defense lawyers and supporters. It is a new provision in the 1987 Constitution specifically established to address any problems that may arise in any matter regarding the delicate balance of powers among three branches of the government. Most importantly, it seek to answer and settle controversies when a persons rights are affected by a political proceedings which means that the courts cannot hereafter evade the duty to settle matters of this nature, by claiming that such matters constitute a political question. To ensure the potency of the power of judicial review to curb grave abuse of discretion by any branch or instrumentalities of government, the afore-quoted Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution engraves, for the first

time into its history, into block letter law the so-called expanded certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the nature of and rationale for which are mirrored in the following excerpt from the sponsorship speech of its proponent, former Chief Justice Constitutional Commissioner Roberto Concepcion: xxx The first section starts with a sentence copied from former Constitutions. It says: The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. I suppose nobody can question it. The next provision is new in our constitutional law. I will read it first and explain. Judicial power includes the duty of courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part or instrumentality of the government. Fellow Members of this Commission, this is actually a product of our experience during martial law. As a matter of fact, it has some antecedents in the past, but the role of the judiciary during the deposed regime was marred considerably by the circumstance that in a number of cases against the government, which then had no legal defense at all, the solicitor general set up the defense of political questions and got away with it. As a consequence, certain principles concerning particularly the writ of habeas corpus, that is, the authority of courts to order the release of political detainees, and other matters related to the operation and effect of martial law failed because the government set up the defense of political question. And the Supreme Court said: Well, since it is political, we have no authority to pass upon it. The Committee on the Judiciary feels that this was not a proper solution of the questions involved. It did not merely request an encroachment upon the rights of the people, but it, in effect, encouraged further violations thereof during the martial law regime. x x xx x x Briefly stated, courts of justice determine the limits of power of the agencies and offices of the government as well as those of its officers. In other words, the judiciary is the final arbiter on the question whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature. Impeachment Definition and History First used in British Political System, impeachment is a process to make any official responsible to the sovereign people. Thus, the House of the Representative has the sole power to initiate an impeachment case to and act as prosecutor to remove or punish any impeachable officer for their wrongdoing. (Art. XI, Sec. 3, Par. 1) Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as other punishment. Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial In the Philippines, Sec 3, par. (7 ) Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution mandates that; Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment according to law. Impeachments as a process arise from the Principle of Responsible Government. The procedure has, over time, become rarely used and some legal authorities (such as Halsbury's Laws of England) consider it to be probably obsolete. Under the Parliamentary System of Government, this process was abandoned and instead replace by a Motion of No Confidence wherein the Prime Minister and other high officials were removed from office through a majority vote of no confidence among the minister. Thus a long drawn-out impeachment could be avoided and the lawmakers could concentrate on their primary role to legislate laws. Impeachable Officials and Impeachable Offense Here in the Philippines, our constitution specifically enumerates officials which are impeachable. The provision of impeachable officers under Sec. 2, Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution are copied from Art. II, Section 4 of the US Constitution. Sec. 2, Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution reads; The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme

Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment. While the Sec.4, Art. II of the US Constitution states that; The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The use of the word other to link high crimes and misdemeanors with treason and bribery of The Framers of the US Constitution is arguably indicative of the types and seriousness of conduct encompassed by high crimes and misdemeanors. Similarly, the word high apparently carried with it a restrictive meaning. The term Betrayal of Public Trust is also new in our constitution as one of the valid grounds for impeachment. The framers of 1987 Constitution gives an instructive explanation that if such offense is so gross and unwarrantable which constitutes ineffectiveness of an impeachable to perform his duty but not criminal in nature, such offense therefore would fell into betrayal of public trust. Among those offenses which could be consider as betrayal of public trust were inexcusable negligence of duty, tyrannical abuse of power, breach of official duty by malfeasance or misfeasance, cronyism, favoritism, etc. to the prejudice of public interest and which tend to bring the office into disrepute..." Betrayal of Public Trust therefore is a catch-all-phrase not for any offense not penalized under the law but for those offense which highly immoral and gravely evil that a person becomes morally unfit to hold any office under this republic.