Two Charter items most cited in trial

Two constitutional principles often are cited in the trial of impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona. The defense’s favorite is “due process”; the prosecution’s, “accountability.”

The defense cries “due process” in arguing for strict adherence to court procedures and against the manner of questioning of five senator-judges. The principle is found in Article III, Bill of Rights, Section 1: “No person shall be deprived of life; liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”

Laymen understand the salience of the right to due process. If the conviction of an accused would spell his execution or imprisonment or confiscation of, say, his bank deposits, he should first be given a fair trial.

The prosecution finds inapt, however, the invoking of “due process” in Corona’s trial. In case of conviction, the punishment in an impeachment is not death or imprisonment, not even a fine, they say. It is revocation of the privilege to serve in government. In Corona’s case, removal from the Chief Justiceship and perpetual bar from public office. So, harping on “due process” allegedly betrays how he views his position as his property. No wonder, the prosecution says, he refuses to go on leave, while on trial and filing petitions for the Supreme Court to hinder the Senate court. No wonder too, they add, he uses SC facilities and funds for demonstrations in his support.

Prosecutors liken an impeachment trial to an administrative hearing against an erring employee. Rules of evidence and of court in criminal proceedings should not hobble it, they say. But the accused must still be entitled to know what he is being made to answer for, and his side be heard.

*      *      *

“Accountability” is the entire Article XI of the Constitution, which details the procedure of impeachment and the duties of the Ombudsman. It also includes the requirement for every public official to declare under oath his assets, liabilities and net worth. But it is Section 1 that defines “accountability”: Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”

Corona at first comported himself accountably, prosecutors say. Before trial began he promised to bare all his assets, explain his alleged wrongs, and respect the impeachment court. He even attended the first hearing, as if to show full appreciation for Section 1.

But then, he turned totally un-accountable, prosecutors say. His lawyers objected no end to the exposure of his annual Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth. He let the SC clerk of court release the documents only when she showed to senator-judges, on live national television, her quandary. She had brought the papers with her, but was afraid of job sanctions if she handed them over.

Corona also opposed the opening of his dollar deposits. While promising to show these “in due time,” he asked his justices to block the Senate court from doing so — which they did by an 8-5 vote. He looked irresponsible in, instead of taking a leave, staying as signatory of their salaries, stipends, reimbursements, leaves, and certifications of work output. Lacking in integrity too, prosecutors say, in looking like he was hiding something. And unpatriotically he pushed the nation to the brink of constitutional crisis because of the SC’s bar on the co-equal Senate. It was like bringing the country down with him, prosecutors say.

The crisis was averted only because the Senate court voted 13-10 to obey the SC. But the danger is not over. Corona still has a petition to stop the trial altogether — in the name of his supposed right to due process. There was no due process, he cries, when 188 congressmen, more than the required one-third of them, impeached him too fast, and in the way five senator-judges ask clarifying questions.

*      *      *

A new global study shows that the company behind the brand is critical to consumer purchasing decisions. Seventy percent of consumers surveyed said they avoid buying the products of companies they dislike. Executives agree: 87 percent of them worldwide and 96 percent in China say that a strong corporate brand is as vital as strong product brands.

Titled “The Company Behind the Brand: In Reputation We Trust,” global PR firm Weber Shandwick commissioned the study. It illustrates discriminating buyer preferences that marketing and communications execs face today. Insights reveal that consumers no longer just buy products. They buy if they believe the product to be high quality, safe, ethical — and made by reputable companies.

*      *      *

Catch Sapol radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., DWIZ (882-AM).

E-mail: [email protected]