Bastardized impeachment process

The impeachment process in our Constitution is an integral part of the “checks and balance” principle of a democratic system of government.

It is a mechanism through which the legislature can hold the president and vice president, the justices of the Supreme Court, and heads of constitutional bodies accountable for the commission of grave offenses.

Although political in character, the process is meant to be used scrupulously and strictly for the grounds cited in the Constitution. The censure or removal from office of an impeachable official is considered a remedy of last resort because of its far-ranging effects on the political structure.

Sadly, the impeachment process in the Philippines has been bastardized, or treated like an ordinary political tool that is wielded at the whim or caprice of whoever has the opportunity to use it.

In 2000, President Joseph Estrada was impeached by way of the opening prayer delivered by Speaker Manuel Villar which a majority of the members of the House of Representatives endorsed by acclamation.

Estrada’s impeachment trial in the Senate did not go through the full measure because of the walkout of the prosecutors. The aborted trial resulted in mass demonstrations that pushed Estrada into resigning.

In 2011, Chief Justice Renato Corona was impeached through a resolution signed by more than one-third of the House members. On the strength of those signatures, his impeachment was, following the Constitution, automatically sent to the Senate for trial. He was later found guilty and dismissed from office.

Corona’s successor, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, has found herself on the same boat. An impeachment complaint has been filed against her by lawyer Larry Gadon on grounds of corruption and violation of the high court’s internal rules of procedure. The House committee on justice has pronounced his complaint sufficient in form and substance.

In a hearing called by the committee to review the evidence against Sereno, Gadon was found to have cited hearsay evidence to support his complaint. This is contrary to his earlier sworn statement that he has personal knowledge of such evidence. As a rule, hearsay evidence is inadmissible in court or cannot be used to prove an allegation made in a complaint.

With this discovery, the committee decided to invite the newspaper reporter from whom Gadon allegedly got his
evidence and the members of the Supreme Court to validate Gadon’s claim on Sereno’s purported violation of the Court’s internal rules.

This incident shows that the complaint was treated lightly or without the degree of seriousness it deserves by both Gadon and the committee. Since Gadon is a lawyer, it is reasonable to expect that he would know the difference between admissible and inadmissible evidence.

By knowingly using hearsay evidence in his complaint, Gadon blatantly disregarded the significance of the impeachment process. He treated with disrespect a democratic procedure that aims to strengthen the principle of public accountability among high government officials. It was as if this mechanism were so trivial or inconsequential that anyone who is so minded can use it anytime it suits him or her.

The committee is similarly situated. Before declaring Gadon’s complaint as sufficient in substance, it should have done what it is presently doing in order to maintain the integrity of the impeachment process and avoid wasting the time and efforts of its members.

Going by the line of questioning during the committee’s recent hearing, it is just a matter of time before the complaint is eventually approved at the plenary and sent to the Senate for trial.

With the impeachment process already trivialized, it should not come as a surprise that it would evolve into a routine practice whenever an impeachable official earns the ire of the House’s powers that be.

Next thing we know, a template on impeachment complaints will be available in the internet and available for downloading by anybody who wants to have his or her 10 minutes of fame in the media.

* * *

Raul J. Palabrica ([email protected]) writes a weekly column in the Business section of the Inquirer.