Too much hairsplitting in impeachment trial
There is too much hairsplitting in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona. The defense said that the number of Corona’s real estate properties is not 45 as the prosecution allegedly claimed, but only 24 or 21. Isn’t that much more than enough?
How can he afford those many condo units and lots in first-class addresses in Metro Manila on his legitimate salary as a justice of the Supreme Court? How many Filipino families can afford that many real estate properties in the metropolis? Even if he has only one but cannot legitimately afford it, and either repeatedly did not declare it or undervalued it in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs), which were made under oath, he is still untruthful. That’s dishonesty. What more if there were 21 or 24 properties hidden from his SALNs year after year? That’s recidivism, which the law punishes more severely.
They were an error, claims the defense. A discount of P10 million on just one purchase a mere error? Forgetting to declare 21 properties a mere error? And forgetting to declare them year after year a mere error?
“Is that an impeachable offense?” asks the defense and, surprisingly, also some of the senator-judges. Ordinary clerks are allowed to “correct” their SALNs, they say, why not the Chief Justice?
That’s precisely the point. Renato Corona is not just an ordinary clerk. He is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, the court of last resort, the court that can declare existing laws enacted by Congress valid or not, the court that can deprive a citizen of his life, liberty or property. What it, or even just three of its 15 members, says becomes the law of the land. Therefore, more is expected of him than an ordinary clerk. Alas, “tinimbang siya ngunit kulang.” (He was weighed [on the scales of trust] and was found wanting.)
Committing an error in his SALNs (repeatedly, I emphasize) is not such a grievous offense, the defense and senator-judges say, as to warrant impeachment. An “error” committed 21 or 24 times is a mere error? One error is one error too many. Does it matter that you killed 21 persons or 45? You are still a killer even if you killed only one.
It is surprising that at this late date, when the Senate is already trying Corona, there are still lawyers who insist that the impeachment complaint filed by the House of Representatives is “defective” and should be stopped. They are still urging the Supreme Court to restrain the trial, a petition that the high tribunal has wisely kept away from. If the Supreme Court issues a TRO, how is it going to enforce it? Cite the senators for contempt? How is it going to enforce the contempt order?
The impeachment complaint was defective because there was not enough time for the 188 congressmen to verify and sign the impeachment complaint in three hours, these lawyers say. Why, how long does it take a congressman to sign a piece of paper? One minute, two minutes? And isn’t it enough that when the congressmen signed the complaint, they knew what it contained and agreed with it? In law, there is the presumption of regularity in all official acts. The filing by the House of Representatives of the impeachment complaint is an official act of its members and the presumption of regularity is there until the contrary is proven.
How much proof is needed to convict? They keep asking. Proof beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial, says the defense. Preponderance of evidence as in an administrative trial, says the prosecution. Substantial evidence as in a civil case, say the senators.
They all forget that the issue here, the bottom line, is the trustworthiness of Corona to be the highest magistrate of the land. The people must have complete trust and faith in him to be effective. If the citizens do not trust him, and eventually the Judiciary and the administration of justice, they will not obey orders of the courts. The result would be anarchy.
There are too many other cases of hairsplitting by both the defense and the senator-judges in the conduct of the trial which is slowing down its progress. So much so that the senators are growing tired of the whole thing as it is depriving them of the time to do what the people elected them to do: enact laws. And the people watching the proceedings on their television sets are not only becoming bored, they are also becoming exasperated, frustrated and—angry.
The prosecution is effectively prevented from presenting its evidence and witnesses by so many objections from the defense and the trial is delayed by so many legal technicalities and hairsplitting. As I said before, if the defense is delaying the trial by its many objections, it is succeeding beautifully. If you can’t win a case, delay it—this is a common advice to young lawyers. Is the defense panel taking this advice to heart? And can’t the Senate presiding officer see this obvious tactic of the defense?
Why don’t the senators allow all the evidence to be presented and then, later, when it is time for them to vote on the guilt or innocence of Corona, to consider only the admissible evidence and disregard those that are not? That way the trial would proceed faster. Except for two or three, the senators are all intelligent people and would know how to decide.
For in the final analysis, what they would have to consider is not the plethora of evidence, arguments and legal technicalities, but the fitness of Corona’s character. They will have to answer this question: Is Corona still fit to remain chief justice? Do the people still have faith and trust in him?
