Philippine News - Today, Chief Justice Renato Corona either keeps his job or goes down ignominiously in Philippine history as the first official to be forced out of office by an impeachment court.
The impeachment court led by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile is set to vote today on whether to convict or acquit the Chief Justice of the charges against him, including failure to disclose all his assets and betrayal of public trust.
A conviction may also pave the way for the filing of criminal charges against Corona by the Office of the Ombudsman.
The impeachment court wrapped up its trial of the Chief Justice yesterday after hearing the oral arguments of both the prosecution and the defense panels.
A guilty verdict on any of the charges is enough ground for his removal from office. But he can also get a mere reprimand or suspension if found guilty.
Today’s verdict will also bring down the curtain on a political drama driven by President Aquino’s anti-corruption campaign. Aquino has openly declared his wish for Corona’s removal from office.
The impeachment trial of Corona began on Jan. 16 or more than a month after 188 members of the House of Representatives voted to impeach him.
Aquino has said that removing the Chief Justice is a crucial step in his crusade to clean up the government.
Corona, 63, is accused of protecting former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from prosecution, as well as lacking integrity and amassing a personal fortune above the limits of his salary – which he failed to declare as required by the Constitution.
Sixteen votes – about two-thirds of the chamber – are required to unseat Corona.
The senators, who include only four members of Aquino’s Liberal Party, have been tight-lipped about how they intend to vote.
“The impeachment process was carried out in a very open, credible and transparent manner and we think the public will accept whatever the decision of the Senate is,” court spokesperson Valentina Cruz said.
“The public is waiting with bated breath. We view it as a chance to move forward in the fight for good governance,” said prosecution spokesman Aurora Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara in an interview.
In a statement, he said conviction is “the only logical conclusion to the four-month impeachment trial” of Corona.
“We don’t see how the Senate impeachment court would acquit the Chief Justice. We don’t see any reason why he should be acquitted,” Angara said.
Another prosecution spokesman, Marikina Rep. Romero Quimbo, said Corona sealed his fate when he left the witness stand without permission of the impeachment court last Tuesday
“His (Corona’s) Tuesday walkout was a game changer. We were always confident before he actually appeared that we had overwhelming evidence in our favor. But that incident, Tuesday, really spelled the difference,” Quimbo said.
Quimbo said the senator-judges are likely to take into consideration the issue of ill-gotten wealth in casting their votes.
“Although the impeachment court had set aside the ill-gotten wealth charge and had prohibited us from presenting evidence to prove it, it would have to be taken into consideration by the impeachment tribunal because CJ Corona’s assets are grossly disproportionate to his income,” he said.
“The Chief Justice admitted that he has $2.4 million and P80 million in the bank, which he did not declare in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN). Defense lawyers have presented witnesses who testified that he made a gross income of about P26 million. Clearly, his assets cannot be supported by his income,” he said.
Lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas said political considerations will come into play in the decision of each senator-judge.
“We are not sure of what will happen because they say that it (impeachment court) is not purely legal. It is also political. I am nervous,” Cuevas told reporters after yesterday’s oral arguments. “On the facts, on the law I think everybody is satisfied, and will agree with us.”
“It will be a reckoning point whether the country will move forward to the direction of public accountability and transparency or stand still and follow the whims of a President,” defense panel spokesperson Rico Quicho told The STAR.
“Everyone is nervous but we leave it up to the impeachment court to decide,” Karen Jimeno, another spokesperson for the defense, said.
But defense lawyer Jose Roy III, however, is confident of an acquittal.
“Personally I find it difficult to believe that we can have a verdict of anything other than an acquittal. So we’re very happy with the case. I’m very happy with the performance of the team,” Roy said.
Ramon Esguerra, another defense lawyer, called the impeachment a “grueling experience” for the Chief Justice.
“The more important thing here if you will ask me now is whether or not as a nation we have learned from this experience. It’s been grueling for the Chief Justice, it almost caused – in a manner of speaking – his life and then he did what he believed should be done,” Esguerra said.
“The experience shall we say was a cultivation of whatever talent we may have,” Cuevas said.
Senator-judges will announce their votes one after another and will each be given two minutes to explain his or her decision. They, however, are not required to explain their votes.
Senators will cast their votes in alphabetical order except for Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, who will be the last to announce his vote.
Unappealable
Enrile, meanwhile, made it clear to Cuevas that the impeachment
court’s decision would be final and that only the Senate has “the sole
power to try and decide all impeachment cases.”“We respect your position but I want to remind you that our reading of Article XI provided that the Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all impeachment cases. I just want to put that on record,” Enrile said.
The Senate president voiced his position after confronting Cuevas over the latter’s declaration in a radio interview that his team would question a Corona conviction before the Supreme Court.
“We have no other alternative but to resort to certiorari… I have asked a petition for review questioning the validity of the actuations of the proceedings before the impeachment court, if necessary a motion to nullify the entirety of the proceedings that took place therein,” Cuevas said based on transcript of the radio interview read by Enrile before the court.
“I hold the position that any decision of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, is final and non-appealable,” Sen. Francis Escudero said.
Prosecution spokesman Rep. Erin Tañada of Quezon also chided the defense lawyers for bringing up the idea of appealing a conviction before the SC.
“Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the presiding judge, has made it clear from the start that the decision of the senator-judges is final and that the penalty is removal from office,” he said.
“It’s clear in our Constitution that whatever decision the impeachment court will make or hand down is unappealable so that although it is a right to bring the case to the Supreme Court, (it) would be treading on a constitutional crisis scenario,” Tañada said in an interview.
“What if the Supreme Court suddenly says that the proceedings here in the impeachment court are illegal or null and void? Then we would be placed in a constitutional crisis,” he added.
He said the Chief Justice should not renege on his promise to accept whatever verdict is issued by the court.
Veteran lawyer Romulo Macalintal echoed Enrile’s and Tañada’s position. “The moment the impeachment court renders its decision, the petition assailing the impeachment court jurisdiction will become moot and academic and the verdict, whether acquittal or conviction, will be implemented accordingly,” he said in a statement.
“By the time the SC resumes its regular session, the impeachment case of Corona is already settled and the verdict executed accordingly,” he stressed. The SC resumes session on June 19.
He, however, explained that the high court may still rule on petitions questioning the impeachment court’s jurisdiction over Corona’s case to “serve for future guidance of the lawyers and the courts, as well as by the Congress of the Philippines to guide our lawmakers in handling future impeachment cases.”
What’s ‘culpa?’
After the final arguments, Enrile asked Cuevas to explain what injury
may arise if a government officer declares his or her foreign deposits
or equivalent amount in his SALN. Cuevas at first said he was not sure.Enrile reiterated his question: “What in your opinion would be the injury to be prevented or prejudice to be avoided warranting the depositor of a foreign currency deposit to be permitted not to include his foreign currency deposits in his SALN if he is a public officer of a public employee?”
Cuevas said concerned officials might become victims of kidnapping or extortion.
“We are forgetting that the law allows that exposure of a foreign currency deposit by expressed provision of Republic Act 6426 if the depositor himself would do it. There is no monetary secrecy law in this country that prohibits or inhibits or proscribes the depositor from revealing his own deposits,” Enrile said, pointing out that a third party is the one prohibited by law, not the depositor.
“Do you consider that as a mandatory provision that requires to be obeyed by a public officer or a public employee? …Do you consider that as a command of the people or something to disregarded?”
Enrile asked Cuevas, referring to Article XI Section 17 of the Constitution, which provides that a public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office, and as often thereafter as maybe provided by law, declare his wealth under oath in his SALN.
“I do not think that it is something that should be disregarded but there are rights that arise from a different law… I do not see any reason why it cannot be availed of in this particular instance, the depositor your honor,” Cuevas said.
“If it is a command, it is a sovereign command, an Austinian concept of command, will disobedience of that command constitute a culpable violation of the Constitution?” Enrile asked.
Cuevas said he was not in a position to make an assertion without the circumstances.
Enrile pointed out that the Constitution speaks of culpable violation.
“I am sure all of us, graduates of UP, went through a study of human law,” Enrile said, to which Cuevas agreed.
But when Enrile asked Cuevas to define “culpa,” the defense counsel failed to answer.
“There are four kinds of culpa – nata or magna, culpa levy, culpa levisima and culpa aquiliana,” Enrile said, asking Cuevas again to define “culpa.”
“As of this moment, I am not in a position to recall. Maybe I was absent when it was discussed by my professor,” the former justice said partly in jest.
Enrile said it was bad luck for Cuevas not being able to answer his questions.
“I think this is material in the consideration of this provision of the Constitution, what is the difference between culpa and dolus?”
Enrile then provided the answer: “Fault or deserving of blame.”
When Enrile asked Cuevas if he considers the provision the first sentence of Article XI Section 17 of the Constitution as “deserving of blame,” Cuevas replied: “If it is intentional your honor…”
“No, it does not call for intent,” Enrile shot back. “I think it is in the provision which says ‘as maybe required by law’,” Enrile said.
Enrile explained that he was asking these questions to guide him and the senator-judges.
Speaking for the prosecution, Ilocos Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas explained that culpable violation of the Constitution is the “willful and intentional violation of the Constitution.”
He said culpable violation of the Constitution is “… not committed unintentionally or involuntarily or in good faith or an honest mistake of judgment and it implies deliberate intent, perhaps even a degree of perversity, for it is not easy to imagine that individuals in the category would go so far as to defy knowingly what the Constitution commands,” Farinas said.
