Impeachment of chief justice is watershed for judicial accountability

A Statement by the the Asian Human Rights Commission
December 20, 2011

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) welcomes the commencement of impeachment proceedings on the Philippines' Chief Justice Renato Corona. We view this as a constitutional process that protects the independence of the judiciary rather than a process that constitutes an attack of the independence of the judiciary. We are also pleased that he has submitted himself to the impeachment process but express concerns at some of his comments that distort the Constitutional intention of the very process.

There is no other way for Corona, whose credibility and integrity have already been questioned in the impeachment complaint, to be held accountable than to have him impeached as required by the 1987 Constitution. The Philippine congress complied with this Constitutional provision after the votes required were obtained to approve the articles of impeachment on December 12, 2011. This anticipated impeachment trial in January 2012 would rather strengthen the Filipino people's confidence of an independent judiciary as they would see that indeed, it is possible to hold court justices to account.

The country's 1987 Constitution protects judicial independence, not only from undermining by other branches of the government, but also from its own people who are part of the judiciary from abuse of their power. Like the country's president, the chief justice is also not immune from being held to account from allegations of wrongdoing in the performance of his judicial duty by way of an impeachment. They cannot occupy a judicial position on assumption that whatever they do – either as an individual judicial officer or as part of the judicial institution – are all absolutely accordingly to law.

Whether the allegations in the articles of impeachment on Corona have no basis or are politically motivated, it is for him to defend himself; and for the Senate's impeachment court to decide base on facts and merit. Thus, those who sit as judges in the impeachment proceedings must also prove themselves as independent and impartial in deciding the case. Senators who will sit as judges but who have already openly supported or questioned the merit of the impeachment, must seriously considers their withdrawal as judges in the trial if the trial is to be credible.

While it is true that procedurally, under the impeachment trial, judges are not confined to the strict rules of judicial process as in courts. But this trial is beyond the issue of procedural matter. It is about the substantive rights of Corona, a person who now stands accused of committing wrongdoing in performing his duties. He is entitled to a fair and impartial trial like any other individual defending their self in any court of law. The Senate must eliminate itself of any molecule of doubt of its independence and impartiality in dealing with Corona's impeachment case if their decision is to be acceptable and legitimate to comply with the fundamental rights of an individual to a fair trial.

The allegation on Corona is not entirely unique for him as some of the members of Philippine judiciary have been for many years also accused of having been involved in judicial corruption, incompetence and impartiality in their decisions. However, even though this has been common knowledge, there have been negligible numbers of court judges and their personnel who were held to account to the serious allegations of wrongdoing. There is a variety of reasons as to why this is so.

Judicial independence does not mean the absolute immunity by members of the judiciary or the institution they are attached to when there are factual and meritorious evidence that they committed wrong doing. However, due to the lack of clarity and substantive discourse in the ongoing legal debate on what 'judicial independence' means there is a taboo if not assumptions that the impeachment of Corona and for any other members of the judiciary in future is itself already a form of an attack against judicial independence. This is wrong. Those who stand accused for any wrongdoing should also refrain from dragging the judicial institution to their defence.

To hold court judges accountable is a matter of great importance. It would have a consequence in their individual's capacity to make impartial and independent decisions in making judgements; however, when there is doubt as to their credibility and fairness in deciding cases, then this should require a rather more stringent measures to ensure impeachment proceedings or prosecution of court judges are not done in abuse or mere retaliation in their exercise of judicial duties. Thus, it is utmost to ensure that due process and fair trial is observed in Corona's impeachment proceeding.

The AHRC therefore urges the public to be thorough and observant in the substance and merits of the impeachment complaint on Corona. They should also be cautious on any attempt that is divisive to the Filipino people, particularly the legal community that is presently divided on this issue. It is expected for anyone charge of serious allegations to make his own defence; however, they should not be to the extent of ignoring or undermining the Constitutional process of impeachment. Also, public discourse on this matter should not be distorted on pretext of protecting the independence of judiciary.

Corona, like any other ordinary individual, has the fundamental right to be presumed innocent and has the right to be heard. This does not mean that it would be justifiable that the impeachment trial is itself already biased or taking place purely for political reasons before they could even perform their Constitutional process of hearing the complaint. This argument is particularly dangerous as a court judge would be assumed to be invincible and given an unjustifiable immunity from any allegations of wrong doing. In which case there would not be any way to hold any court justices accountable and no other way to resolve the conflict between three branches of government.