Law and justice

In order to avoid questions and remove doubts on the Senate decision in the Corona impeachment case whether for or against him the parties involved must stick to the issues and adhere to the rules. So far, even as the trial has not started yet, there are already some supervening moves and disturbing developments which may render the outcome of the case more highly controversial.

Calling for press conferences and issuing press releases to announce and present to media, derogatory information and allegedly damaging evidence against the respondent in the impeachment case who is still the SC Chief Justice, are definitely below the belt tactics if not outright disregard of the rules. The trial here is supposed to be inside the halls of the Senate and before the Senators of the Republic who represent the people, not before the people themselves or before the Bar of Public Opinion. The authority to decide this case really emanates from the people but it is exercised through their representatives, the Senators chosen by them in an election.

What is happening now if not immediately checked is clearly a trial by publicity to shape a biased public opinion against Corona or much worse, to arouse the peoples’ antipathy of him because of his alleged wrongdoings. Indeed, Corona’s latest trust rating according to the recent survey has further slipped to an all time low. Apparently these tactics are now being employed either to force Corona’s resignation before the start of the Senate trial or to influence the Senators to render a decision based on what the people supposedly want as shown by poll surveys, rather than on what the evidence warrants.

It is true that impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process where highly technical rules of procedures known only to lawyers are applied. It is also true that the Senators should be guided by what is good and beneficial to the nation, not by technicalities. Nevertheless in making a decision, the Senators must see to it that the interest of substantial justice is served. Justice here refers to the conformity of our will to the broader and all embracing law that distinguishes what is right or good from what is wrong or evil which is the object of morality. It does not refer to man-made laws and methods by which society compels and restrains the actions of its members which is the object of jurisprudence and which therefore may be imperfect and flawed. Definitely, what is right or good and what is wrong or evil is not determined in a political process which is more of a popularity contest.

But more damaging to the integrity and fairness of the impeachment proceeding is the repeated airing of certain allegations not included among the eight counts of charges purportedly constituting the grounds for impeachment categorized as betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the constitution and graft and corruption. These new allegations raise issues not covered by the impeachment complaint initiated by the Lower House and endorsed to the Senate for trial on the merits. Hence they were not duly considered and taken up in Corona’s answer already filed in the Senate. They are non-issues in the trial of the case.

Foremost among these non issues and new allegations is that Corona may have amassed ill gotten wealth including at least four multi-million real estate properties that could not have been acquired with his salary in the judiciary. This is a new allegation because the articles of impeachment charging him with graft and corruption only mention his alleged failure to disclose to the public his SALN and his failure and refusal to account for the Judiciary Development Fund and Special Allowance for Judiciary Collections.

The worse part here is that this new allegation was announced to the media not by the Lower House prosecution panel but by Malacañang itself through the Presidential Adviser on Political Affairs who assumed the role of spokesman for the Congressmen prosecutors and said that the panel has documents to prove said ill gotten wealth. Could it be that Malacañang is really the one behind this impeachment move and that its real purpose is to force Corona’s resignation?

Then another allegation which is not among the eight grounds for impeachment is the alleged dubious granting of a doctorate in Civil Law to Corona and qualifying him for honors as Summa cum Laude by the University of Santos Tomas (UST). A broadsheet claiming to have a “balanced news and fearless views” recently came out with a story that UST broke its rules to favor Corona with the said doctorate degree. But when UST pointed out that Corona indeed enrolled in all the requisite subjects and complied with the academic requirements including the presentation of a “scholarly treatise for his dissertation in a public forum”, the newspaper just kept quiet and chose not to dispute the truth of this reply. Could it be that this is really just another demolition job against Corona to force him to resign?

These new allegations raising new issues are clearly not included in the Articles of impeachment initiated by the Lower House and filed in the Senate. Hence, if the prosecutors will present evidence on these new allegations, the Articles of Impeachment must be amended first. Since only the Lower House has the exclusive authority to initiate the impeachment, should not the original articles now filed in Senate be withdrawn first so that the members of the Lower House can deliberate and vote on whether to file the amended articles? Will justice be served if Corona is deprived of the chance to answer these new allegations before the start of the trial?

Undoubtedly, a lot of people have reasons to ask for Corona’s ouster. His appointment as Chief Justice may really be in violation of the Constitution prohibiting midnight appointments. There may indeed be numerous decisions of the SC which betray its partiality and bias and which serve as stumbling blocks to the fight against graft and corruption. The SC and the judiciary itself should really be reformed because of its dismal record of performance based on public perception. But can questionable means be employed in achieving these noble goals? Can a wrong be corrected with another wrong?

These are valid questions in this case which have to be properly answered to serve the ends of justice and the rule of law.