Jurisprudence to guide both Senate and House

The Filipino people have reason to be dismayed by the latest development on the impeachment of the vice president. The actions of both Houses of Congress indicate that both senators and congressmen aren’t well-grounded on law and jurisprudence.

We should be disappointed also at the quality of discourses in social media. Ignorance is overpowering wisdom. To elevate the levels of national debates and conversations on the impeachment of the vice president, it’s important people should be informed of what impeachment is.

This case decided by the Supreme Court on January 12, 2021, on the letter of Ma. Cristina Corona requesting the grant of retirement and other benefits to the late chief justice Renato Corona and her claim for survivorship pension as his wife, is a good reference.

The decision started with a definition of impeachment, as follows: “Impeachment is a constitutional process that takes place within the political departments of our government. The House of Representatives accuses and the Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, decides."

The court continued: "Public opinion, as well as the facts established by the evidence and the grounds and processes prescribed by the basic law, steer and weigh heavily in the formulation of its outcome. Nevertheless, the pervasive realm of the courts that is judicial review is retained as to any act within the limits of discretion provided by the Constitution.”

One of the questions that should be resolved is whether or not a convicted and impeached public official, including the chief justice, and if ever, the vice president, is entitled to retirement and other related benefits, despite their conviction and impeachment. In other words, if the vice president is convicted, would she be able to collect her retirement benefits which included her long service as city mayor of Davao?

The convicted and impeached chief justice later died and his widow pleaded the Supreme Court to release his retirement benefits. In granting the request of the widow, the Supreme Court declared: "Impeachment was conceived as part of the system of checks and balances in the Constitution of the USA."

The High Tribunal stressed: "In the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the delegates aimed to craft a mechanism that would allow for the discipline of a President who abused his constitutional responsibilities, without creating a weapon by which the President would be prevented from carrying them out. The ultimate goal was to refine and make effective the separation of powers."

The rationale for allowing the release of the retirement benefits of the impeached chief justice were outlined by the Court that: "Impeachment is, this, designed to remove the impeachable officer from office, not punish him. It is purely political, and it is neither civil, criminal or administrative in nature." This statement by the Supreme Court indicates that impeachment is one of a kind, or "sui generis".

It continued: "No legally actionable liability attaches to the public officer by a mere judgment of impeachment against him or her, and thus lies the necessity for a separate conviction for charges that must be properly filed with courts of law… The nature of impeachment proceedings is so limiting that forum shopping or alleged violation of the right against double jeopardy could not even be successfully invoked upon the institution of the separate complaints or information."

Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the release of the retirement benefits to the widow of the late chief justice based on the conclusion in law that: "An impeached public officer, whose civil, criminal or administrative liability was no judicially established, may be considered involuntarily retired from the service." It stands to reason then that retirement benefits become due and demandable.

It was further concluded by the Supreme Court that "an impeached public officer whose civil, criminal, or administrative liability was not judicially established is entitled to the retirement benefits provided under RA 9946 and RA 8291. The Court declared having determined the entitlement of Chief Justice Corona to retirement benefits, it naturally follows that his widow is likewise entitled to survivorship benefits reckoned from the time of the demise of the late Chief Justice until the widow's death or remarriage.”

The decision penned by Justice Hernando was unanimously concurred in by Chief Justice Peralta and Associate Justices Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Gesmundo (later chief justice), Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Lopez, De los Santos and Rosario.

All the senators and the congressmen, including the non-lawyers, should at the very least, read the law and study jurisprudence.