Degree of proof not needed

Since the start of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, the senator-judges, as well as the prosecution and defense panels, have been—and still are—in quandary as to the degree of proof required to decide the case.  Some say it is proof beyond reasonable doubt since an impeachment case is akin to a criminal action; others claim preponderance of or more than just a substantial evidence would be enough, because an impeachment case is an administrative case.

In other words, there is no specific or precise degree of proof required in an impeachment case.  Thus, a senator-judge can decide on the basis of the “product of his own mind,” to Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile’s repartee to a query raised by the prosecution.  This means that the decision or the vote of a senator-judge, as well as the appreciation of the evidence submitted by the parties, is left to each senator’s own sense of judgment.  He is not bound by any standard or degree of proof in arriving at a decision.  He is not even required to make his decision or opinion in writing.  He may or may not explain his vote on judgment day.  He will only be asked to rise and choose his answer: “Guilty” or “Not Guilty.”

Whatever vote a senator-judge renders, the same is final and unappealable. It is not subject to any review by the Supreme Court or any court or agency.  Even a motion to reconsider the vote is not allowed under the impeachment rules. It could only be the subject of a political issue for or against a senator on election day.

And this is so because, while an impeachment case involves quasi-judicial proceedings, the decision therein could be more political than legal.

—ROMULO B. MACALINTAL,

independent impeachment analyst,

Las Piñas City