Impeachment Article 3: A Primer

Tuesday, 21 February 2012 00:00

Written by Tony La Viña

Now that the Prosecution has moved to Article III, let me share my understanding of this Article and what needs to be proved for this ground to be proven. This primer was written with legal researcher and UP Law student Marianne Sibulo before the hearing on February 21, 2012 when Senator Juan Ponce Enrile disallowed evidence allegedly showing that Chief Justice Corona accepted free tickets from Philippine Airlines while the FASAP case was pending before the court. Our analysis also did not also anticipate the strategy of the prosecution although we can see the thinking behind such strategy. Again, it is clear that the crafting of the impeachment complaint was flawed, and in this case it seems fatally flawed. Increasingly, one lesson that is emerging from this trial is that the House should never bring an impeachment complaint directly to the Senate without benefit of hearings and investigation. Such hearings and gathering of evidence would be at the control of the House instead of the Senate and could guide the drafting of the Articles of Impeachment. In any case, this is water under the bridge and it remains to be seen how the prosecution will fare with Article 3.

What is Article III of the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato Corona?

A: Respondent committed culpable violations of the Constitution and betrayed the public trust by failing to meet and observe the stringent standards under Art. VIII Sec. 7(3) of the Constitution that provides that a member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence in allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of flip-flopping decisions in final and executory cases; in creating an excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office; and in discussing with litigants regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court.

Q: What is the Constitutional ground upon which Article III is based?

A: Culpable violations of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.

Q: What is culpable violation of the Constitution?

A: Both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions have included “culpable violation of the Constitution”. This ground, which is not found in the American constitution, must be understood to mean willful and intentional violation of the Constitution and not violations committed unintentionally or involuntarily or in good faith or through an honest mistake of judgment.

Q: What is betrayal of public trust? (copied from Article 1 discussion)

A: Both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions did not include “betrayal of public trust” as a ground for impeachment. It is only during the deliberations of the members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission when the broad concept of “betrayal of public trust” was added. The phrase was intended to be a catch-all phrase to cover any violation of the oath of office. Commissioner Rustico de los Reyes, Jr., the one responsible for the inclusion of the phrase, explained that it referred to “all acts which are not punishable by statutes as penal offenses but, nonetheless, render the officer unfit to continue in office”. He further said that “it includes betrayal of public interest, inexcusable negligence of duty, tyrannical abuse of power, breach of official duty by malfeasance or misfeasance, cronyism, favoritism, etc. to the prejudice of public interest and which tend to bring the office into disrepute..." Commissioner Ricardo Romulo added “obstruction of justice” to the aforementioned enumeration.

Moreover, in the leading case of Francisco, Jr. vs. Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc. (2003), the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the definition of "betrayal of public trust" is a "a non-justiciable political question which is beyond the scope of its judicial power" under the Constitution. The phrase does not seem to prescribe which branch of government has the power to define it, but implies that Congress, which handles impeachment cases, has the power to do so.

Q: How did the Chief Justice betrayed the public trust and violated the constitution?

A: From the reading of Article III, the Chief Justice allegedly betrayed the public trust and violated the constitution when he failed to meet and observe the stringent standards under Art. VIII Sec. 7(3) which requires a member of the Judiciary to be of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence.

Q: What are those instances alleged in Article III that exhibited the Chief Justice’s lack of competence, integrity, probity and independence?

A: There seems to be three instances alleged in Article III. These are:

(1)    In allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of flip-flopping decisions in final and executory cases.
(2)    In creating an excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office.
(3)    In discussing with litigants regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court.

Acting on letters filed by counsel which led to flip-flopping of final and executory cases

Factual Background

This allegation stems from the recent recall of the case of Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. et al. decided on September 7, 2011 by the Supreme Court’s Second Division denying a Second Motion for Reconsideration of the 2008 ruling in favor of FASAP.
The recall was allegedly because of a letter coming from PAL’s counsel, Atty. Estelito Mendoza.
Atty. Estelito Mendoza is also the one who wrote a personal letter to the Chief Justice which also caused the flip-flopping in the League of Cities v. COMELEC.
Atty. Estelito Mendoza was the one who posited that Mrs. Arroyo may appoint the next Chief Justice despite the constitutional ban. This is what appears to be the reason why the Chief Justice seems to have a debt of gratitude to Atty. Mendoza.

Issues

Did Atty. Estelito Mendoza’s letter influence the decision of the Chief Justice in recalling the FASAP case.
Did these acts cast doubt as to the impartiality of the decision of the Court which would show that the Chief Justice is unfit for his position since the bar is highest for Justices and most especially the Chief Justice.

Facts to be ascertained

The fact that the Chief Justice allowed the Supreme Court to recall the FASAP case by reason of the letter of Atty. Estelito Mendoza.
The fact that this act constitute lack of high ethical principles and a sense of propriety that would render the Chief Justice unfit for his position.

Excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo through the appointment of his wife in office

Factual Background

March 23, 2007 - Cristina Corona, wife of Chief Justice Corona, was appointed to the Board of the John Hay Management Corporation (JHMC) by Mrs. Arroyo.
JHMC is a wholly- owned subsidiary corporation of the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA).
BCDA is a government owned and controlled corporation created under RA 7227.
There were allegedly serious complaints filed against Mrs. Corona by her fellow board members. Instead of acting on the complaints, Mrs. Arroyo asked all the boards to tender their courtesy resignations immediately.
It was also alleged that Mrs. Corona was allowed to rack up unnecessary expenses totaling P690,183 which she spent while holding office in Quezon City when JHMC’s operations were all in Baguio City.
It was alleged that Mrs. Corona was appointed in a position where she received a substantial salary, cars and travel opportunities in exchange of favorable votes in Mrs. Arroyo’s cases.

Issues

Was Mrs. Corona appointed by reason of her being the wife of Chief Justice Corona.
Did the appointment constitute a violation of Canon 1, Section 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct which says that “A judge shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.”
Did the appointment in exchange for favorable votes constitute a violation of Canon 4, Section 8 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct which says that “Judges and members of their families shall neither ask for, nor accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the performance of judicial duties.”

Facts to be ascertained

The fact of agreement between Mrs. Arroyo and the Chief Justice that in exchange for the appointment, the Chief Justice will render favorable votes in Mrs. Arroyo’s cases.
The ‘favorable votes’ rendered by the Chief Justice in cases involving Mrs. Arroyo.

Discussing with litigants regarding cases pending with the Supreme Court

Factual Background

September 2010 – Lauro Vizconde, surviving member of the Vizconde family who were murdered in 1991, and Dante Jimenez of the Volunteers against Crime and Corruption (VACC) paid a courtesy call to Chief Justice Corona’s chambers after his appointment.
Vizconde asked the Chief Justice about the status of the multiple murder case against Hubert Webb et al.
The Chief Justice allegedly engaged Vizconde in a personal and ex-parte conversation regarding the case which was pending consideration before the Supreme Court.
He also told Vizconde that fellow Justice Carpio was lobbying for the acquittal of Hubert Webb.
Issues

Did these acts constitute serious breach of the rule of confidentiality that must be maintained by the Court with respect to cases pending before it to ensure that the members of the Court are insulated from lobbying and pressure from any of the litigants of a pending case.
Did the Chief Justice violate the honor and integrity of a fellow justice in his absence and in the process, maligned and undermined the credibility of the Supreme Court as an institution by painting for Vizconde a picture of a Court that is subject to the influence of one out of 15 Justices.
Did these acts violate Sec 3(k) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits any official from “divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date”.

Facts to be ascertained

The fact that the meeting actually happened between Vizconde, Jimenez and the Chief Justice.
There really was a conversation between Vizconde, Jimenez and the Chief Justice where the Chief Justice revealed to Vizconde the status of the case and that a Justice was lobbying for the acquittal of the accused.

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites