Before the prosecution’s emotional hubris hits the proverbial fan it would be best to have a concise rundown of the key issues which will drive the Senate’s decision making process, if it were to do justice to the Philippine republic.
Here are key issues to consider. These involve the following: public trust, betrayal of public trust, standards of evidence, and a decoupled process.
1. What is “public trust”?
* Public Trust Doctrine – refers to a common law doctrine creating the legal right of the public to use certain lands and waters. The right may be concurrent with private ownership. The legal interest of the public is not absolute; it is determined by a balancing of interests. The rights of the public are vested in each state as owner and trustee of Trust lands.
2. What constitutes “betrayal of public trust” –
* It can be anything that Congress wants it to be (US President Ford).
* In Francisco, Jr. vs. Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc., the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the definition of “betrayal of public trust” is a “a non-justiciable political question which is beyond the scope of its judicial power” under the Constitution.[1] It did not prescribe which branch of government has the power to define it, but implies that Congress, which handles impeachment cases, has the power to do so.
* By broad definition, a government official, whether elected, appointed or hired, breaches the public trust when he/she asks, demands, solicits, accepts, or agrees to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of their official duties.
3. “High crimes and misdemeanors” also includes other offenses, applicable only to a public official, for which the standard is “preponderance of evidence”.
4. Deprivation of future rights to hold public office is a punishment and therefore has to meet the standards of “guilty beyond reasonable” doubt.
5. Decoupled process. Just because Congress can define “betrayal of public trust” in whatever way it deems fit, does not mean that the Senate can convict and punish officials on the basis of “preponderance of evidence”.
6. Because the Senate will be punishing an impeached official by deprivation of constitutional rights to hold public office in the future - it has to apply the highest standards of justice – “guilty beyond reasonable doubt”.
7. If standard of “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” is not met, Senate has to acquit. As was said in the OJ Trials, “if the glove does not fit, you have to acquit”.
The headlines contain pronouncements from Aquino that an exoneration is unimaginable – it’s about time he acquired an imagination.
You don’t have to look far. Noynoy Aquino and his galamay, already betrayed the Public Trust. And had Breached the Trust, our people has given to them. Noynoy Aquino should be kicked out, not Corona…The impeachment of Corona in Congress, without any Due Process of Law…is already a glaring proof of betrayal of Public Trust…
[Reply]
Is this backed up by jurisprudence? I’ve been wondering if there is an answer for the quantum of evidence necessary to convict in an impeachment trial. Enrile asserts that senator-judges are left to decide for themselves, but with the likes of Drilon, I don’t think they’re smart enough.
[Reply]
BongV Reply:
March 13th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Joseangelo,
I have reason to believe it is backed up by jurisprudence – on the basis that it was the same framework which lead to the acquittal of Bill Clinton
a) the Congress can file impeachment articles on the basis of “preponderance of evidence”
b) the Senate will rule on the basis of “guilt beyond reasonable doubt”
Clinton was acquitted – despite evidence of his sperm on the clothes of Monica Lewinsky
[Reply]
Peste Reply:
March 14th, 2012 at 2:24 am
Wasn’t Clinton acquitted because, in the minds of the US Senate, what happened–what was proven by evidence to have happened, those sex, lies, and videotape–isn’t worthy enough to remove him from the presidency?
That’s basically what the Philippine Senate will be deciding: should Corona be removed from the Supreme Court? I don’t even know if the senators would appreciate the evidence. Or maybe appreciate the hearsay, illegally acquired documents, forged documents, opinions, press releases and everything else for their consideration too.
[Reply]