Impeachment: What to
Expect?
By SENATOR PIA S. CAYETANO
January
15, 2012
As all eyes turn to
the Senate, to watch the impeachment trial unfold, an understanding of
the procedure and the intent of the Constitution would help everyone
understand this process better.
Role of the Senate
Article XI, section 6
of the Constitution states:
The Senate shall have
the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When
sitting for that purpose the Senators shall be under oath or
affirmation.
Following the above
mandate, last December 14, 2011, we took our oath as judges of the
impeachment court. A perusal of the Senate’s Rules of Procedure on
Impeachment Trials (“Senate Rules on Impeachment,” for brevity),
reveals that indeed we sit as a trial court with the “power to compel
the attendance of witnesses … punish in a summary way contempts of,
and disobedience to, its authority, orders …” and others. The same
rules further state that witnesses shall be examined and then
cross-examined (Sec. V and XV).
Because we sit as a
trial court, we are not there to use our personal relations nor our
political affiliations. What is required is that we go through the
trial, calling witnesses, listening to their testimonies and the
cross-examinations. We are even allowed to ask questions (Senate Rules
on Impeachment, Sec. XVII). Then as trial judges we are required to
weigh the evidence presented and make a decision.
If the intention of
the framers of the Constitution were to make this a purely political
process, then why go through an impeachment trial? The Constitution
could have then just allowed the President or provided for some other
means to remove the defendant-official subject of the impeachment.
How then are we
suppose to judge the case?
Our jurisprudence
states that:
[A]ll suitors are
entitled to nothing short of the cold neutrality of an independent,
wholly free, disinterested and impartial tribunal (Luque v Kayanana,
29 SCRA 178 [1963]).
Impartial judgments
are described as decisions “on the basis of facts and in accordance
with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences,
inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect,
from any quarter or for any reason” (The impartiality of the judiciary
and the effectiveness of the justice systems, quoting Principle 2 of
the Seven key principles on the independence of the Judiciary.
Wilfried de Wever. Effectius)
Because of the dearth
of materials on the impeachment process, I looked at books authored by
American legal luminaries. Our Constitution is patterned after the US
Constitution and our provisions on impeachment are similar. In
“Impeachment, A Handbook,” author Charles Black, Jr., Sterling
Professor Emeritus at Yale Law School and adjunct professor of law at
Columbia Law School opines that the fact that the senators take a
separate oath emphasizes that the Senate “whether for this occasion
you call it a ‘judicial’ body or not- is taking on quite a different
role from its normal legislative one.”
He further states “The
fact that the Senate is to ‘try’ all impeachments, not simply vote on
them, implies that it takes on the nature of a judicial trial, because
the word to ‘try’ is a word used almost invariably in regard to
judicial trials.”
Thus, the
all-important question of the impartiality of the judges arise. As
noted by Black, and as I am sure, many are also aware, “senators find
themselves either definitely friendly or definitely inimical to the
[accused]. In an ordinary judicial trial, person in such a position
would of course be disqualified to act, whether as judges or as
jurors.”
And thus Black,
further states:
“It cannot have been
the intention of the Framers that this rule apply in impeachments, for
its application would be absurd; a great many senators would
inevitably be disqualified by it, and it might easily happen that
trial would be by a quite small remnant of the Senate. The remedy has
to be in the conscience of each senator, who ought to realize the
danger and try as far as possible to divest himself of all prejudice
(emphasis provided).”
Thus, there is no
doubt that when the Senators sit as judges we do so separate from our
function as law makers. We sit as judges in the impeachment trial and
we are required to act with the cold neutrality of a judge, devoid of
bias and partialities.
The Role of Every
Filipino Citizen
The Constitution
provides for various ways in which the citizens can participate in our
democratic process, one of them is the constitutionally guaranteed
freedom of expression. Filipinos have been very vocal about their
support or disdain for anything from public personalities to political
decisions made by incumbent officials. Clearly, we want to have a role
in the impeachment process.
It has been said that
“[O]ne of the demands of a democratic society is that the public
should know what goes on in the courts by being informed by the press
what is happening there, to the end that the public may judge whether
our system of administration of justice is fair and right (Trial by
Publicity, Arsenio Solidum. Philippine Law Journal, September 1959).
What then can our
citizens do?
- Support the process
set out by the Constitution
- Patient but vigilant
observation
- Critical but fair
analysis
In the formation of
one’s opinions, Charles Black states:
“We ought to try to
take the same stance of principled political neutrality that we hope
to see taken by the House and the Senate as they go about their work."
Given the above, what
is expected from a senator-judge? That he or she listens to every
single opinion offered by friends, strangers or media? Or that we stay
true to our oath and base our decisions on the evidence presented? I
humbly submit, that despite the interesting theories and conclusions
that will surely come out of this trial, we are required to pass
judgment based on the evidence presented in the impeachment court.
On
making comments and statements about the impeachment
Senators:
Like a judge in a
judicial court, Section XVIII of the Senate Rules on Impeachment
requires that the Members of the Senate “refrain from making any
comments and disclosures in public pertaining to the merits of a
pending impeachment trial.”
The same rule applies
“to the prosecutors, to the person impeached, and to their respective
counsel and witnesses.”
And to the public and
those in media. Yes, we each have own opinions. In fact, the press
have their Constitutional guarantees on freedom of the press. Does
that mean we can all say anything we want about the impeachment trial?
As a judge, I need to
shed myself of all impartialities and take on the neutrality of a
disinterested person. In addition I am barred from making any comments
on the merits of the trial.
For every other
citizen, the Constitution and our rules are silent. But if you expect
fairness from your judges, then perhaps the same principle of
political neutrality will go along way in helping each other
understand the issues without being swayed by personal or political
leanings. This will then elevate the discussion and would go a long
way to help the Senators focus on the evidence on hand and not on
public perception.
Conclusion
If we accept that we
are a democratic society governed by our Constitution and our laws,
then we must submit ourselves to the systems that have been put into
place. And be vigilant about observing it properly and guarding
against abuses.
We all have a role
to perform. If we do it well, we can reach a different level of
political maturity and democracy. And in the process, strengthen our
institutions which will make for a stronger nation.