Impeachment trial is illogical, vague & void

By BERTENI “TOTO” CATALUNA CAUSING
Editor-in-chief, Dyaryo Magdalo

The framers of the 1987 Constitution, who included the most revered constitutional law expert Father Joaquin Bernas and former Chief Justice Hilario Davide, must have committed a blunder when they wrote the provisions on impeachment, particularly in writing the grounds for the same and in designating who should be the judges thereof.

To know what they wrote as the grounds or reasons or justifications to allow impeachment, the provision of Section 2 of Article XI of the Constitution states as follows:

“Section 2. 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.”

For purposes of greater understanding, let me summarize the justifications written by the framers. These are “culpable violation of the Constitution,” “treason,” “bribery”,“graft and corruption,” “other high crimes,” and “betrayal of public trust.”

Looking at the faces of these grounds or reasons, they are all facts to be proved; They can never be opinions of the majority of the people that just because they do not want the face of the accused in an impeachment trial the accused must be adjudged guilty even if the prosecutors failed to prove the facts of the accusations.

These grounds must be facts. They can never be said to be logical to be based on political judgments, or on the basis of just because majority of the people do not like the respondent in the impeachment trial.

To make it more understandable, these grounds should be those that what really happened. They should not be what the people say or what the senators say.

Let the “culpable violation of the Constitution” be discussed.

When can the accused in an impeachment trial be said to be guilty of “culpable violation of the Constitution”? To answer this honestly, the judge should ask: what really happened? It is not that the judge should ask: what do the people want?

It is only when there are proofs that the accused can be said to have committed acts of violations to be truly said he is guilty of the impeachment charge of “culpable violation of the Constitution?”

It is not when the people or the senators afraid of the peoples’ votes to say the accused should be guilty of culpable violation of the Constitution just because the people do not like the accused. It is not that the people want to oust the accused. It is when the accused really committed the acts that constituted the charge.

So that if the framers of the 1987 Constitution, including Father Bernas and then Chief Justice Davide, decided to make the senators as the judges or the jurors of the impeachment trial, they committed a blunder that NO SENATOR WOULD EVER PRONOUNCE HIS JUDGMENT AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AS EACH OF THE SENATORS PERCEIVED WHAT THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE REALLY IS.

These senators will never vote according to what they believe is true because they will always decide in favor of what they feel is what the people want. Much more if the senators are running for reelection or for election of a higher or other position, they will never antagonize the people.

So that if the framers of the Constitution decided to make the senators as the judges they committed a big blunder. They forgot that the senators will decide not on the basis of what the facts are but on what the people want.

Can Chief Justice Renato Corona now expect to be acquitted despite the strong evidence in his favor but majority of the people want him out?

Of course, while it is predictable that Senator Lito Lapid will vote according to the facts as he saw them because Lapid is not seeking a reelection, we cannot expect Senator Bong Revilla to decide on his conscience as he would see the evidence or he will lose his bid to become vice president.

In the same manner that all other senators cannot be expected to decide on merits unless they want to court disaster that the people will no longer vote for them.

It is indeed too sad for Chief Justice Corona that President Benigno Simeon Aquino III is too popular to the people that anything the president says is more believed in.

Confirming this is Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, who said that the voice of the people will take the biggest role in influencing the decision of the jurors-senators.

Will any senator be truthful and honest enough to the evidence? Of course, they will never ever be as a rule of habit of life.

If the jurors can never be independent, this is a violation of the very basic right to be adjudged only on what is just as evidence can support. If the jurors-senators can never be independent, t is then a violation of due process right.

The basic right of due process is composed of two essentials: (1) the right to be notified of the charge; and (2) the right to be heard.

So how will the right to be heard be given life when the jurors will never hear the evidence or will never consider the evidence because their minds are controlled by the people's will?

So that the vagueness here is caused by limiting the choices of the judges only to the senators.

Remember, the grounds used in the Constitution should be THE VOICE OF FACTS, and NOT THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.

Also, there is a rule that reasonably supports the theory that vagueness of the provisions makes that provision unenforceable and void because it violates the due process right: THE RIGHT THAT THE ACCUSED BE SPECIFICALLY INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM.

Is the impeachment trial provision unenforceable or void just because it appears to be vague and illogical to the fact of life that the judges can never shed themselves of the political influence to their decision?

This author dares say “yes.”

There is only one ground for impeachment that can be logical with senators as the jurors: IT IS THE GROUND OF LOSS OF TRUST OR CONFIDENCE.

The loss of trust can exist even if there was no crime committed, even if there was no violation of the constitutional provisions.

At least, the "loss of trust" is is not based on factual circumstances but more on whether the people like or do not like the impeachment respondent.