What is betrayal of public trust?

It’s our duty to know why there are multiple petitions to impeach the vice president. No one should ever open his mouth or post stupidities on social media if he is ignorant of the legal basis. Know one of the bases for impeachment: betrayal of public trust.

When a national or local candidate asks for your vote, he offers to be trusted to serve the nation. When you decide to vote for him, you trust in such a politician. When he takes an oath of office, he binds himself to a trust agreement.

Thus, when he steals public funds or "sells" our country to China or the US, he violates that trust. When a public official squanders confidential funds and refuses to explain how it was spent, the confidence is betrayed.

One of the grounds for impeachment specifically provided under Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is betrayal of public trust. Is the phrase not too vague and too general that it could be abused by the congressmen and senators, most of whom aren’t lawyers?

Vagueness can be a just cause for interposing lack of due process because the respondent wouldn’t be properly informed of the nature of the charges. It’s imperative that we all understand its meaning so that we can contribute intelligently in the national discourse on the four impeachment charges against the vice president.

Justice Perlas-Estela Bernabe explained this in the en banc Supreme Court decision in case of Emilio Lopez III versus Office of the President, et al, GR No 196231, consolidated with the case of Wendell Barreras-Sulit vs. Paquito Ochoa Jr, et al, GR No 196232, which was promulgated on September 4, 2012. This gives us a glimpse on the meaning of betrayal of public trust.

The Supreme Court held in that decision: "Would every negligent act or misconduct in the performance of x x x duties constitute betrayal of public trust warranting immediate removal from office? The question calls for a deeper circumspection and look at the nature of the grounds for the removal x x x visa-vis common administrative offenses."

The impeachment court should be very careful in applying the Constitution. That was precisely the stance of Senators Miriam Defensor Santiago, Joker Arroyo, and BBM who who voted against the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona.

The highest court in the case of Gonzales and Sulit against the administration of then President Aquino III, said: “Betrayal of public trust is a new ground and good faith precluded or impeachment under the 1987 Constitution, added to the existing grounds of culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption and other high crimes."

The Supreme Court issued this warning: "Indeed, the catch-all phrase betrayal of public trust that referred to all acts not punishable by statute as penal offenses, but, nonetheless, render the officer unfit to continue in office, could be easily utilized for every conceivable misconduct or negligence in office.”

It was the High Court's opinion: "The Constitutional Commission eventually found it reasonably acceptable for the phrase "betrayal of public trust" to refer to acts which are just short of being criminal but constitute gross faithlessness against public trust, tyrannical abuse of power, inexcusable negligence of duty, favoritism and gross exercise of discretionary powers."

With these as standards, I have a strong feeling the vice president is facing a bleak future before the impeachment court. Remember that in impeachment, there is no need for proof beyond reasonable doubt. Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.

Using all these legal parameters, I believe the lawyers for the vice president may find it difficult to convince the impeachment court that what VP Sara has done, in totality, as we heard in the Senate and House legislative inquiries, didn’t constitute betrayal of public trust. But since impeachment is a political process, the side with the numbers shall win. But if Malacañang shall give the signal to convict, that will be how the cookie shall crumble.

While I believe the vice president is guilty (but the president and many others may be guilty as well), I add that the prosecution may not be able to get 16 votes or two-thirds of the Senate to vote for conviction. It’s easier for the defense to get more than eight votes for acquittal.

But then again if the president, first lady, and House speaker should pressure the Senate president and senators, then we may have a new vice president this year. I can be wrong, of course, but I have a strong feeling I will be proven right.