Mariel Josine David

Introduction to Law/Philosophy of Law

Atty. Arturo de Castro

When the former Chief Justice Renato Corona was impeached through a vote of guilty by
20 Senators and 4 Senators voting otherwise, it signified a change in the political environment of
our nation. Despite the large margin between the votes, the question of the sufficiency of the
arguments and evidences presented as grounds for impeachment still divides the Filipino people.
Some strongly believe that his supposed ill-gotten wealth was enough evidence. However, other
people, myself included, believe that such is not enough to remove the Chief Magistrate from his
seat..
The impeachment complaint was passed by the House of Representatives, through the
signatures of 188 congressmen. Clearly, the impeachment is a serious business. It is a
quasi-judicial, quasi-political process. Impeachment is the way provided by the constitution to
ensure that no one is above the law. Through this process, public officers are held accountable in
different aspectsfrom transparency in their assets to their decorum and treatment to the Filipino
people. Impeachment is a way to ensure that the one in the position deserves that position and that
no inappropriate individual may continue to occupy a position when public trust is betrayed.
Because it is sui generis, being that it is neither absolutely a judicial, political, civil, nor criminal
proceeding but instead a hybrid, there was no clear-cut rules on how the impeachment proceeding
was to be undertaken. It is a hybrid in the sense that is a quasi-judicial, quasi-political process. It
is quasi-judicial in the sense that all throughout the process, impartiality must be upheld. It is
quasi-judicial in the sense that the law and facts should ultimately be the basis of the judgment.
Laws must not be sacrificed for the sake of convenience. On the other hand, it is quasi-political
because since the judges are senators, it is impossible that they do not already have a previous
connection with the respondent. They all have a predisposed image of the respondent, and while
this is grounds for disqualification on normal trials, it cannot be the case in impeachment as there
are only 24 senators and if those with biases will be disqualified, then only a small portion of that
will proceed with the trial as judges. This is where the concept of conscience comes in. It is
expected that the predicament of biases can be resolved if the senator judges follow their
respective educated consciences.
Eiincumbitprobatio qui dicit, non qui negat--- The burden of proof lies upon him who
affirm, not he who denies.
The Constitution strongly protects the presumption of innocence. It is, therefore, the
responsibility of the one who alleges the crime to prove the existence of such crime. The burden
of proof rests on the prosecution, who is charged with collecting and presenting undeniable
evidence that indeed, the accused is guilty. However, these evidences must be collected and
presented in the most possible credible way so as not to compromise the integrity of the court and
the case at bar. Unfortunately, we believe that this was not practiced in this trial. The integrity of
the impeachment court was held in question more than once during the trial due to the
Prosecutions adamant claims of corruption by the respondent while disregarding the rule of law
and rules of evidence. Furthermore, there was a debate on the quality and sufficiency of evidence
presented. While the prosecution was willing to settle for substantial evidence, the defense
panel strongly asserted that the proof presented must be beyond reasonable doubt. This is

attributed to the gravity of the punishment in case of impeachment. Not only will the respondent
be judged by the media and the public, with all his assets and personal life displayed for everyone
to see and examine, he also faces perpetual absolute disqualification from any public office. This
virtually means an ending a mans career as well as besmirching his reputation. According to
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, removal by conviction on impeachment is a stunning penalty,
the ruin of a life.However, since this is not a criminal case, the standard could be set lower
although not as low as simply substantial evidence. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago argues
just that, in accordance with Prof. Black of Yale University. According to Prof. Black, the
standard of proof should be overwhelming preponderance of evidence. This means that the
quality and quantity of evidence is enough to prevail over the other partys evidence.
Under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, the respondent is said to have committed a
culpable violation of the Constitution by submitting an incomplete SALN. The former Chief
Justice Renato C. Corona did not fully disclose his foreign currency accounts amounting to $2.4
Million and his other Peso denominated accounts totaling around Php 80 Million on the grounds
that the former is protected by a provision of absolute confidentiality under Section 8 of Republic
Act 6426 or the Foreign Currency Deposit Act; and the latter, being comingled accounts of which
he is not the true sole owner.
Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides that A public officer or employee
shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a
declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the
Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional
Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or
flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law. The
charge alone in Article II of the Articles of Impeachment says nondisclosure of SALN.
However, the respondent did submit his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net worth. The
problem lies in the assets which he did not declare. These are the abovementioned foreign
currency deposits as well as Peso deposits in comingled accounts. Nevertheless, we maintain that
the respondent was able to sufficiently explain his omission. The respondent believes that in
accordance with RA 6426 which provides for absolute confidentiality to all foreign currency
depositors, he was then under no legal duty to declare such deposits.
Section 8 of the RA 6426 orForeign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines, provides that
All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as
foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered
of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in
no instance shall foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person,
government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any
other entity whether public or private; Provided, however, That said foreign currency deposits
shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court,
legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever. It is clear that
absent a waiver of the depositor, the deposits cannot, in any circumstance, be inspected by any
person. Senator Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. said In view of the ambiguous situation created by the
concurrent application of the 1987 constitution, the SALN law, and the FCDU law, and absent a
determinative judicial pronouncement that resolves the contrary positions on this legal issue, the
Chief Justice must be presumed to have acted in good faith. In any case, omissions and
misdeclarations in the SALN are not tantamount to dishonestly, much more betrayal of public

trust. Discrepancies, inaccuracies, and even incompleteness of the SALN can be revised after a
review of the statement. Again, the intent of fraud must be proven before a criminal or
administrative liability can be sustained by the public official.
Justice is said to be on the side of the rich, which is why most people give higher standards
to the rich when it comes to upholding the law. However, this shouldnt be the case. Neither a
persons financial standing nor position in the government should ever be a factor when it comes
to justice. Senator Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. said The lady justice wears a blindfold for a reason.
She is to render judgment based on law and evidence, without regard to the circumstances and
personalities of the parties involvedhowever controversial they may be. She is to dispense
justice without fear or favor. In an impeachment trial which is quasi-judicial and quasi-political,
it is very hard to delineate when one is being impartial or not. Most of the senator-judges failed to
render their verdicts based on the quality of evidence as well as the law itself, but instead
supported their verdict with accounts of people who were in a similar albeit different
circumstance as the respondent. Some even went as far as concluding that there was graft and
corruption involved even if these werent the issue at hand.
It was very frustrating to see our legislators resort to leaking bank documents to
exaggerations and ballooning of these reports, to attributing evidence to dubious sources such as
the little lady. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibusliterally, false in one, false in all. These
reckless, unethical and perhaps even illegal means of gathering evidence further suggest the lack
of credibility of the prosecution. What was supposed to be a sacred act provided for the in the
Constitution was turned into a machinery of personal vendetta against the respondent. A
conviction despite the way the case was handled will set a precedent for succeeding impeachment
caseswhere preparation will be disregarded and partisan politics will be prioritized.
Senator Miriam Santiago, in her speech explaining her verdict on the impeachment of Chief
Justice Corona said that while the defendant did admit that he did not declare his dollar accounts
and other comingled peso accounts, this omission does not constitute an impeachable offense.
Senator Santiago further said that: Under the rule of ejusdem generis, when a general word
occurs after a number of specific words, the meaning of the general word should be limited to the
kind or class of thing within which the specific words fall. The Constitution provides that the
impeachable offenses are: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. An omission in good faith in the SALN
carries a light penalty, and is even allowed to be corrected. Thus, it is not impeachable.
The legislators failed the nation from the moment the complaint was presented to the House
of Representatives. It is a requirement that allegations in the complaint must be verified. However,
the complaint, instigated by some puppets of the current administration, was full of loopholes and
inconsistencies which led to a fishing expedition during the trial. Furthermore, it was
questionable how the complaint was passed that fast. Did it even go through the requisite readings
and debates on the House of Representatives floor before it was passed to the Senate?
Ultimately, it was a dark day for justice in the country. It was merely a political exercise, a
telenovela, a political moro-moro. Instead of justice and fairness, partisan politics dominated the
floor. Considering recent events, it is only saddening to realize that this blatant disregard of the
doctrine of separation of powers is only the beginning.