Culpable violation of the Constitution

One of the grounds for impeachment under Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is culpable violation of the Constitution. Lawyers, Law professors, authors, and justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals as well as the Sandiganbayan and the Ombudsman have not come up with a clear, people-friendly definition of this ground for impeachment.

Artificial intelligence tells us that a culpable violation of the Constitution refers to a willful, intentional, or deliberate breach of the supreme law of the land. It is something more serious than a mere error in judgment, or a minor and accidental lapse of discretion. I hasten to interject, based on my various research, that such violation of the Constitution, to be considered culpable, should be characterized by malice, deceit, or bad faith. All these make the respondent public official virtually unfit for office.

The first element is that for a violation of the Constitution, to be culpable is that the act has been willful and intentional. The word "willful" means it is done with deliberate intent. And if I may add my little knowledge in basic philosophy, the action has been undertaken or performed with knowledge, with freedom and with voluntariness. Knowledge is of the mind. Freedom is of the spirit. And voluntariness is the function of the will.

That means that the offender knows that it is wrong, that the specific act is either intrinsically bad (mala per se) or bad because there is an explicit prohibition against it (mala prohibita). He had freedom not to do it, there being no compulsion to perform the said act. Having the knowledge and the freedom, he still voluntarily proceeded to do the said act.

In the context of the Philippine Constitution, a culpable violation thereof means any of the impeachable offense committed by either the president, vice president, members of the Supreme Court or commissioners of the Commission on Elections, COA, and Civil Service Commission as well as the ombudsman, which is willful or intentional and not merely an erroneous judgment, or an error resulting in lack of foresight, lack of skill or lapse in the choices of alternative action.

Under Article XI, Section 17 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, it is explicitly provided: "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, Vice President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions, and the other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces, with the general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law."

Presidential Decree no 379, issued on January 21, 1974, in relation to Republic Act 3019, requiring the submission of Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN), carries with it a penalty of imprisonment for not less than two years for violating the SALN law. It has been alleged that the vice president has violated the SALN law, as one of the component offenses of the second Articles of Impeachment. Whether or not said violation is proven by evidence, it is the contention of the prosecution that the respondent is guilty of culpable violation of the Constitution.

Also, under Article VII, Section 5 of the Constitution, before assuming her position, the vice president took the following oath office: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as vice president, preserve and defend the Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the to the service of the Nation. So help me, God."

The question is: Did the vice president, willfully, and with evident premeditation, with intent to gain and with evil intention, culpably violate the Constitution? The answer: It depends on the evidence for the prosecution as well as for the defense. Until and unless we hear the evidence, it is improper, uncalled for and unfair to make any conclusion.

Therefore, the defense should not restrain, stifle, impede, or delay the presentation of evidence by technicalities and procedural inanities. Let the truth be revealed no matter if the heavens shall fall.