SALUDO’S COLLEAGUE ATTY. JOHN CARLO GIL. M. SADIAN CONTRIBUTED THIS COLUMN.
In every controversy brought to court, decisions are based on two things: facts and law. Questions of fact are decided on evidence from opposing sides, while legal issues hinge on the court’s interpretation of applicable statutes. Up to its closing arguments on Monday, the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona generated several legal controversies that the Senate sitting as an impeachment court had to address. Here are some of the most contentious ones:
Was the impeachment complaint properly verified? Even before the trial started, the Defense questioned the validity of the complaint for “failure to comply with the requirement of verification.”
Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court requires that a complaint be “verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his knowledge and belief.”
On the first day of the trial, the Defense moved for outright dismissal, arguing that it was impossible for 188 congressmen-signatories to have read the 56-page Articles of Impeachment in just a few hours. In its very first ruling, the Senate court denied this motion. Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, presiding over the trial, said the complaint was properly verified according to House rules. The ruling, in effect, affirms that the lower chamber alone determines how it would handle complaints, including verification.
The Defense disagreed. It filed six petitions still pending before the Supreme Court assailing the validity of the complaint. And while Senate President Enrile has repeatedly recognized the Court’s jurisdiction on legal issues in the trial, he nonetheless expressed his view that the High Court can only interfere with the Senate “if we commit mistake and we become arbitrary or tyrannical or oppressive in our decision ... But while we are doing the work, in our opinion, no one can interfere with us.”
How should the SALN be made public? Possibly the only strong charge against the Chief Justice is the Second Article alleging that he “failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth” in violation of section 17, Article XI of the Constitution as well as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019).
Since the Supreme Court affirms that Corona submitted SALNs, Article II then centers on the question: Were the Chief Justice’s SALNs disclosed to the public as required by law? The applicable legal provision is Section 8 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713). It recognizes the public’s right to know the SALNs of public officials, but prohibits access to or use of SALNs “for (1) any purpose contrary to morals or public policy; or (2) any commercial purpose other than by news and communications media for dissemination to the general public.”
With that stipulation, government bodies, including the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Office of the Ombudsman, have set rules for public access to SALNs of their officials and staff. Now if High Court procedures limit access to the CJ’s Statements, should he be penalized? Indeed, under those guidelines, Corona reportedly needs the approval of his fellow justices before making his SALN public.
Can evidence be presented for offenses not in the complaint? The Prosecution tried to use the SALNs to show unexplained wealth in violation of RA 3019. But Enrile issued a ruling barring evidence of ill-gotten wealth under Article II, because the offense it falls under —corruption—is not among those alleged in the Article: breach of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.
When the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was to testify about income tax returns (ITRs) of Corona and his family, Senate President Enrile stressed that the relevance of the ITRs to the Second Article must first be shown. He also reminded prosecutors that their “buckshot approach” in requesting subpoenas to produce all sorts of records without knowing whether they are of value to the case, constitutes “fishing” unless such requests are made with “specificity.” This reminder was repeated by Enrile when the prosecution sought to subpoena bank information and documents from the Supreme Court.
The Prosecution explained that the ITRs would show that the couple cannot justify their acquisition of expensive properties, Senate President Enrile pointed out that the trial dealt with what was declared or not declared in the SALNs, and that whatever Corona did before becoming Chief Justice had no relevance to the impeachment trial. In short, the charge at the bar is undeclared assets, not unexplained or illicit wealth.
Do SALN errors constitute an impeachable offense? According to prosecutor Rep. Elpidio Barzaga, Corona’s failure to fill up the column under acquisition cost for all of his SALNs from 2002 to 2011 constitutes “false entries” which amounts to “perjury” and the “highest betrayal of public trust.” Enrile then quizzed Barzaga whether he views perjury as a high crime, to which the congressman said “no.”
The legal maxim ejusdem generis may apply here: if the ground for impeachment is not among the offenses listed in the Constitution, that ground must be a “high crime” of equal gravity and magnitude as the specified offenses of culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, or graft and corruption. One indication of severity is the punishment for the offenses. Treason and certain combinations of bribery, and graft and corruption are punishable by life imprisonment.
Perjury, on the other hand, merits a maximum of two years and four months in jail. But when the Senate so decides, it could be enough to remove a Chief Justice.
(From The CenSEI Report 30-page comprehensive analysis and compendium of the Corona impeachment. For a free copy, email report@censeisolutions.com)
John Carlo Gil M. Sadian is writer-analyst for the Center for Strategy, Enterprise & Intelligence, which publishes The CenSEI Report, strategic analysis and research on national, business and global issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment