Repetition of same violations in good faith?
In one of the impeachment hearings, I heard Sen. Joker Arroyo manifest that respondent Chief Justice Renato Corona’s failure to declare all his assets in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth, as well as his failure to reflect therein the acquisition costs of the assets he declared, would at most only constitute perjury, which is not an impeachable offense under the Constitution.
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile agreed, invoking the statutory rule of ejusdem generis, and then explained that for an offense to serve as basis for conviction in an impeachment proceeding, it must be in the category of treason, bribery and other high crimes. Arroyo then cited the case of US President Bill Clinton. Impeached for his sexual liaison with a certain woman, the US Senate acquitted him, ruling that the charge against him was not an impeachable offense.
Arroyo’s reference to the Clinton impeachment and Enrile’s view that an offense, to be a ground for impeachment, must be in the category of treason, bribery and other high crimes, are somewhat off-tangent and inaccurate.
To begin with, betrayal of public trust and even graft and corruption, grounds for impeachment that the prosecutors have invoked, are not found in the US constitution. Hence, it is quite absurd for Arroyo and Enrile to suggest that only high crimes in the category of treason and bribery may serve as bases for impeaching respondent Corona.
As pointed out by Rep. Niel Tupas who cited Fr. Joaquin Bernas’ opinion on the matter, betrayal of public trust as a ground for impeachment in the Philippine setting would encompass inappropriate acts that may not even constitute a felony or crime.
It bears stressing that Sec. 7 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Sec. 8 (A) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards (RA 6713) invariably require every public officer and employee to file, among others, a true, detailed and sworn SALN on or before April 15 of every year. In this connection, if a public officer—a chief justice at that—who has taken an oath to obey all the laws, legal orders or decrees, etc., does not file his sworn SALN within the prescribed period, or does not declare in his sworn SALN certain properties he had acquired, does that not constitute a breach of public trust?
The violations may not amount to a high crime, but they certainly fall within the scope of betrayal of public trust, especially so because they have been committed by the country’s highest magistrate, who is expected to be a role model for law-abiding citizens. In fact, perjury, committed by even an ordinary employee, is already condemnable, how much more when done by a chief justice?
Also, one’s failure to disclose all his assets and to state the true value of his properties for one or two years may be unintentional but, certainly, when repeated for a good number of years, can’t be said to be an “omission” in good faith.
—NES M. PLACER,
former president of the National
Prosecution Service,
11 Aquarius St., Moonwalk Subdivision,
Parañaque City
