Impeachment based on betrayal of public trust

Stripped of any partisan political innuendoes and sans any of the political undertones, we should explain to the people the meaning of impeachment, and the grounds specified under the Philippine Constitution, which includes betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, and other high crimes.

The ongoing talk of a proposed impeachment of the vice president supposedly based on her alleged refusal or inability to explain the use of multi-million funds in her office should be understood well by the people. A strong democracy should be anchored on a citizenry that knows the real issues, understand the meaning and implications of all pertinent terms, and are wise and discerning enough to avoid manipulation by traditional politicians with selfish and highly partisan agenda. As a professor of Law, I feel it is my obligation to share with the people my humble understanding of these things.

In the case of Emilio Gonzales III versus the Office of the President, GR 196231, decided by the Supreme Court, en banc (or by all of the 15 justices), the highest court of the land considered the term "betrayal of public trust" as broad enough to cover any violation of the oath of office. It refers to any acts which are "just short of being criminal but constitute gross faithlessness against public trust, tyrannical use of power, inexcusable negligence of duty, favoritism and gross exercise of discretionary powers."

If we use these standards, I am afraid that the vice president may reasonably be held to account for the specific acts allegedly attributable to her. That is assuming, of course, that there is sufficient evidence to prove the facts and the operative acts being charged against her. Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe, a learned and well-experienced magistrate, who wrote the decision, bewailed that the definition of betrayal of public trust is imprecise and "created apprehension that such overarching standard may be too broad and may be subject to abuse and arbitrary exercise by the legislature" in the process of impeachment.

The records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission deliberations indicate that one commissioner, Mr. W. Villacorta, expressed his reservations on the inclusion of "betrayal of public trust" because it is too broad as to encompass any violation of the oath of office. Villacorta cautioned colleagues that even the 1972 Constitutional Convention considered including it but ultimately decided not to enumerate it among the grounds for impeachment. What we are saying here is that the vice president may indeed be subject to impeachment by the House. But I doubt that the more learned senators would convict the vice president based on such a general basis.

Justice Perlas-Bernabe explained in the case of Gonzales that utmost care should be taken by the House and the Senate because such all-encompassing phrases may embrace all acts "not punishable by statutes as penal offenses but, nonetheless, render the officer unfit to continue in office.” The Supreme Court then warned that this ground "could be easily utilized for every conceivable misconduct or negligence in office." However, for the consolation of the vice president, the justice assured that she can invoke human error and good faith as a defense.

It was my famous mentor and idol delegate Jose N. Nolledo who insisted that "betrayal of public trust" should be included as a ground for impeachment and he succeeded despite the reservation of Commissioner Villacorta. There is a living expert on this that we can tap to explain to the people the meaning and intention of this provision. I refer to my mentor, hero, and inspiration, retired chief justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. who was both an elected delegate to the 1972 Concon and an appointed commissioner of the 1986 Concom. As a learned jurist and legal expert, Manong Jun Davide can educate us on these constitutional issues.

Meanwhile, I conclude that since impeachment is not just a legal matter but a political move, there is grave and imminent danger that the vice president may be impeached by the House and if the accusers have the numbers in the Senate, she can be convicted too. That means that one of the senators can be chosen as the next vice president. That would not mean, however, that the vice president is guilty. It could only mean that her political enemies have the number to oust her via the route of impeachment.