the nature of an impeachment trial.docx

8/11/2019 THE NATURE OF AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.docx

1/25


2/25

The fundamental book on this topic is entitled, Impeachment: A Handbookby Professor Charles Black, Jr. of Yale University. It consists of only 69pages, and I strongly recommend that it should be required reading forpoliticians who aspire to the minimum level of intelligence on theimpeachment process. I shall now try to summarize Prof. Black.

Impeachment is a dreadful process. It inflicts a deep wound on the country.The citizens should adopt an attitude of "vigilant waiting;" while therepresentatives and the senators should adopt an attitude of "principledpolitical neutrality."

The technical "Rules of Evidence" should not apply to an impeachmenttrial. In effect, the House is the prosecuting party at the Senate trial, andthe managers are the counsel of the House. The impeachment trial, being

quasi-judicial, should inquire into the facts and the law, without partisan ornarrow political bias, and proceed to judgment accordingly. The goal shouldbe total impartiality.

However, impeachment is also quasi-political. Many senators findthemselves either definitely friendly or definitely inimical to the ChiefJustice. In an ordinary judicial trial, persons with such attitudes would bedisqualified. But if so, many of the senators would then have to bedisqualified, and only a small remnant will remain to conduct the trial.

According to Prof. Black: "The remedy has to be in the conscience of eachsenator." Therefore, the ultimate issue is whether each senator has aconscience, and if that conscience is educated.

The worst penalty that the Senate is authorized to impose is merelyremoval from office and disqualification to hold public office. TheConstitution provides that judgment "shall not extend further" than thesetwo penalties. This implies that the Senate can impose lower penalties. Theremoved officer may later be tried and punished in the ordinary courts, forordinary offenses that are grounds for removal.

Senate acquittal is not an endorsement of the Chief Justice, or even anapproval of his conduct. Acquittal establishes only that the senators whovoted No were not convinced of the guilt of the Chief Justice on the actual

Articles of Impeachment, brought in by the House of Representatives.

Since impeachment is not a criminal trial, the standard of proof should notbe as high as "proof beyond reasonable doubt." But because it targets the


3/25

highest official of the judicial branch, the standard of proof should not be aslow as "substantial evidence." Prof. Black recommends that the standard ofproof should be "overwhelming preponderance of evidence." Certainpeople who claim that the standard of proof does not matter, are in effectarguing that impeachment is a purely political process, which is misguided.

There should not be any "judicial review" of impeachment proceedings. It isnot only the courts that can discuss or determine issues of constitutionality.Congress has final responsibility for impeachment, because it has theresponsibility to preserve the forms and precepts of our Constitution. It isnot sensible to allow the Supreme Court to review the final decision of theSenate as an impeachment court. Otherwise, an impeached and convictedChief Justice could go back to the Supreme Court for the rest of his term,which is absurd. No reinstated Chief Justice would be able to regain his

aura of legitimacy.

Courts decide constitutional questions which arise from cases over whichthey have jurisdiction. Courts have no jurisdiction over the impeachmentprocess. Impeachment is quasi-judicial in the sense that it aims at fairness,impartiality, and decision according to law.

Competence of House and Senate

Impeachment is a matter of law. Hence, the impeachment proceedings in

the House put House representatives into positions for which they areneither trained nor prepared. When they reach trial, the representativesassume the role of prosecutor, which requires a carefully documented casethrough the filing of appropriate briefs, questioning of witnesses, cross-examination, and oral advocacy. However, many House members are notlawyers, and even if they are, they have little experience in litigation or trialtactics.

Their role becomes even more complicated, because the defense counsel,unlike the representatives, are usually experienced trial lawyers. Hence,the House managers should delegate extensive motion and pretrialpractice to narrow the issues, as well as conduct depositions, to outsidecounsel and permanent staff. A problem with the representatives asprosecutors is that they want to do everything themselves in front of thecameras. This is the siren call of media, because it includes a certainamount of egotism and narcissism.


4/25

On the part of the Senate, the senators are not allowed to debate in opencourt many issues in the impeachment trial. When debate is permittedamong senators, it must be made in closed session. As a result, thereasons for certain decision in an impeachment trial may not be reflected inthe public record. As in the case of representatives, many senators alsolack the requisite experience, expertise, or training to deal competently withimpeachment matters.

Role of Media

Prof. Black advocates "most strenuously" that radio, TV, and camerasshould not be allowed at the impeachment trial. His argument is that itinflicts humiliation greater than that inflicted by the mere fact ofimpeachment. He wrote: "Nothing solid is added to public information, but

making a continuing spectacle of a trial. Above all, TV, radio, andphotography act upon that which they purport to observe." Prof. Blackargues that what we see and hear is not what would have occurred if mediawere not there.

The other argument is that continual nationwide TV exposure poses thedanger of maximizing the chances of development of public pressure forsome given result. Accordingly, he warns: "The judgment of the publicought to come after the fact, on sober and long consideration of a recordwhich will remain accessible forever."

In the case of Pres. Clinton, it has been said that the media had enormousimpact, as follows:

First, because there are countless media outlets, there is now franticcompetition not only to get breaking news, but also to engage inspeculation and commentary, rather than simply reporting facts, in aneffort to keep or increase audiences.

Second, the media coverage drove the final outcome. In addition, mediacoverage of the Clinton impeachment trial constantly reminded the

American people that it was difficult to argue convincingly that Clinton hadbreached the public trust, which is the classic prerequisite forimpeachment. The media's constant bashing of Pres. Clinton's integritythroughout his presidency might have lowered the public expectationregarding Clinton's integrity. American media seemed to be obsessed in


5/25


6/25

The Process of Impeachment in Philippine Politics https://suite.io/renato-bautista- jr/559s2j3

Impeachment is an extraordinary means of removing from office certain

public officials. These selected officials cannot be removed by any othermeans.

Impeachment is an extraordinary means of removing from office certainpublic officials. These selected officials cannot be removed by any othermeans.

Now that the House of Representatives' Committee on Justice has decidedto proceed with the impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, thePhilippines may yet again witness another top public official be subjected tothis unique mode of removal from office. Former president Joseph "Erap"Estrada was the first highest official to have been impeached from office in2001, although his impeachment trial was aborted when the prosecutorswalked out in protest of the Impeachment Court's vote on a vital issue.

Who May be Impeached from Office?
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/190151/joseph-estrada-and-his-final-performance-in-philippine-politicshttp://www.gmanews.tv/story/190151/joseph-estrada-and-his-final-performance-in-philippine-politicshttp://www.gmanews.tv/story/190151/joseph-estrada-and-his-final-performance-in-philippine-politicshttp://www.gmanews.tv/story/190151/joseph-estrada-and-his-final-performance-in-philippine-politics


7/25

Under Article 11, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution, the followingofficials may only be removed from office by impeachment:

President

Vice-President

Justices of the Supreme Court

Members of the Constitutional Commissions

Ombudsman

The Constitutional Commissions consist of the Commission on Audit,Commission on Elections and the Civil Service Commission. TheOmbudsman investigates illegal acts or activities committed by publicofficials, employees or agencies.

Grounds for Impeachment

The grounds for impeachment are culpable violation of the Constitution,treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes or betrayal of publictrust.

According to constitutional law expert, retired Supreme Court JusticeIsagani A. Cruz in his book Philippine Political Law , culpable violation of theConstitution means "wrongful, intentional or willful disregard or flouting of

the fundamental law." He adds that mere mistakes in understanding orinterpreting the Constitution cannot be covered by this ground. Citing areport of the special committee of the House of Representatives thatinvestigated the impeachment charges against former President ElpidioQuirino, Cruz says that "other high crimes" have been interpreted as those


8/25

offenses which, like treason and bribery, are so serious in nature as toaffect the orderly workings of the government.

Finally, Cruz says that "betrayal of public trust" is a catch-all ground whichwould make any act unbecoming of a public official, such as abuse ofauthority or neglect of duty, an impeachable offense even though such actsaren't crimes.

Who May File an Impeachment Complaint?

Article 11, Section 3(2) of the Philippine Constitution provides that anymember of the House of Representatives or any citizen, provided it isendorsed in a resolution by any member of the House of Representatives,may file an impeachment complaint. The complaint is filed with the Houseof Representatives, which is one of the houses of Congress. The other onebeing the Senate.

Initiation and Trial of Impeachment Complaints

The House of Representatives has the sole power to initiate all cases ofimpeachment, while the Senate has the sole power to try all impeachmentcases. The House must vote by one-third of its members before theimpeachment complaint (called Articles of Impeachment) is transmitted tothe Senate for trial. Once the House musters the one-third votes, the officialconcerned is then considered impeached for all intents and purposes. This,however, is still not enough to remove him or her from office as the Senatemust still try the case and convict the official by a two-thirds vote of itsmembers.

Effect of Conviction


9/25

If the impeachment trial results in conviction, the impeached official will beremoved from office and be disqualified to hold any office under theRepublic of the Philippines, pursuant to Article 11, Section 3 (7) of thePhilippine Constitution. The convicted official may still be liable for criminal

prosecution if the acts that led to his or her impeachment constitutedcriminal offenses.

One-Year Bar on Impeachment

Under Article 11, Section 3 (5) of the Philippine Constitution, noimpeachment proceedings may be initiated against the same official morethan once within a period of one year. In Francisco, Jr. v. House ofRepresentatives, G.R. No. 160261 (Nov. 10, 2003), t he word "initiated"under this provision has been interpreted as the filing of an impeachmentcomplaint, either by any member of the House or any private citizen that isendorsed by any House member.

Thus, when on June 2, 2003 then President Joseph "Erap" Estrada filed animpeachment complaint against former Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario

Davide Jr., which was later dismissed, the second impeachment complaintfiled against the Chief Justice on Oct. 23, 2003 was disallowed for violatingthe one-year bar on impeachment

PHILIPPINE SCENARIO

Constitutional Basis and Annotations

Cons t i tu t iona l P rov i s ions

ARTICLE XI - ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members ofthe Supreme Court, the Members of the ConstitutionalCommissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/nov2003/gr_160261_2003.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/nov2003/gr_160261_2003.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/nov2003/gr_160261_2003.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/nov2003/gr_160261_2003.html


10/25

office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violationof the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, otherhigh crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officersand employees may be removed from office as provided bylaw, but not by impeachment.

Section 3.

1. The House of Representatives shall have the exclusivepower to initiate all cases of impeachment.

2. A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by anyMember of the House of Representatives or by anycitizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any Memberthereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business

within ten session days, and referred to the properCommittee within three session days thereafter. TheCommittee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all itsMembers, shall submit its report to the House within sixtysession days from such referral, together with thecorresponding resolution. The resolution shall becalendared for consideration by the House within tensession days from receipt thereof.

3. A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of theHouse shall be necessary either to affirm a favorableresolution with the Articles of Impeachment of theCommittee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote ofeach Member shall be recorded.

4. In case the verified complaint or resolution ofimpeachment is filed by at least one-third of all theMembers of the House, the same shall constitute the

Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shallforthwith proceed.

5. No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against

the same official more than once within a period of oneyear.6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all

cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, theSenators shall be on oath or affirmation. When thePresident of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice ofthe Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No


11/25

person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

7. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extendfurther than removal from office and disqualification tohold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, butthe party convicted shall nevertheless be liable andsubject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according tolaw.

8. The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachmentto effectively carry out the purpose of this section.

Defini t ion and Nature

Impeachment is a process of national inquest intothe conduct of public officials and the bringing ofcharges against them for misconduct in office.

While the process of impeachment has theelements of a criminal process, it is basically apolitical process designed to deal with themisconduct by high public officers. The politicalaspect of this process stems from the fact that the

participants (ie. senator judges, prosecutors) are notordinary citizens acting as judges but rather areelected officials who serve by virtue of theirpositions and not because they have been selectedby the courts to serve in judgment.

Im peachable Off ice

Article X, Section 2. "The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, theMembers of the Constitutional Commissions, andthe Ombudsman..."

The list of impeachable officers are exclusive andmay neither be increased nor reduced by the


12/25

legislature. All other public officers and employeesmay be removed from office as provided by law, butnot by impeachment.

Grounds fo r Imp eachm ent

Article XI, Section 2. "...may be removed from office onimpeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation ofthe Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption,other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust."

1. Culpable violation of the Constitution

It is the deliberate and wrongful breach of theConstitution. Violation of the Constitution madeunintentionally, in good faith, and mere mistakes inthe proper construction of the Constitution do notconstitute and impeachable offense.

2. Treason

It is committed by any person who, owing allegiance

to the Government of the Philippines, not being aforeigner, levies war against them or adheres totheir enemies, giving them aid or comfort within thePhilippines or elsewhere. (Art. 114, Revised PenalCode)

3. Bribery

Bribery as an impeachable offense may either beDirect Bribery or Indirect Bribery.

Direct bribery - It is committed by any public officerwho shall agree to perform an act constituting acrime, in connection with the performance of thisofficial duties, in consideration of any offer, promise,gift or present received by such officer, personallyor through the mediation of another.


13/25

If the object for which the gift was received orpromised was to make the public officer refrain fromdoing something which it was his official duty todo. (Art. 210, Revised Penal Code)

Indirect bribery . -It is committed by a public officerwhen he accept gifts offered to him by reason of hisoffice. (Art. 211, Revised Penal Code)

4. Graft and Corruption

This must be understood in the light of theprovisions of the Republic Act No. 3019, Anti-Graftand Corrupt Practices Act.. Any violation of the

prohibited acts provided therein constitutes aground for impeachment.

5. Other high crimes or Betrayal of Public Trust

The exact meaning of "other high crimes or betrayalof public trust" as an impeachable offense is stillundefined. The framers of the Constitution putimpeachment into the hands of the legislativebranch and transformed it from a matter of legal

definition to a matter of political judgment. Hence,the definition of an impeachable offense dependson the majority of the House of Representativesconsiders it to be a given moment in history.

In impeachment investigation against PresidentQuirino, the special committee of the House ofRepresentatives referred "other high crimes" as tothose crimes which, like treason and bribery, are ofso serious and enormous a nature as to affect thevery life or orderly workings of the government.

Betrayal of Public Trust, on the other hand, is a newground for impeachment, which covers "anyviolation of the oath of office involving loss ofpopular support even if the violation may notamount to a punishable offense." (De


14/25

Leon, Philippine Constitutional Law , 1999, RexPrinting Company, Inc., p.757)

Procedure

The Constitution sets forth the general principlesgoverning the procedural aspects of impeachment.It also grants the Congress to promulgate its ruleson impeachment.

The House of Representatives have the exclusivepower to initiate all cases of impeachment.

An impeachment is instituted by written accusationscalled Articles of Impeachment, which state theoffenses charged. A verified complaint forimpeachment may be filed by any Member of theHouse of Representatives or by any citizen upon aresolution or endorsement by any Member thereof.

Impeachment proceedings can begin with an inquiryof impeachment resolution or with a direct

resolution.In an inquiry of impeachment resolution, after thefiling of the verified complaint, the same shall beincluded in the Order of Business of the House ofRepresentatives within ten session days, andreferred to the Judiciary Committee within threesession days thereafter.

The House Judiciary Committee then holds

hearings and investigates the charges.

The Committee, after hearing, and by a majorityvote of all its Members, shall submit its report to theHouse within sixty session days from such referral,together with the corresponding resolution. Theresolution shall be calendared for consideration by


15/25

the House within ten session days from receiptthereof.

A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of theHouse shall be necessary either to affirm afavorable resolution with the Articles ofImpeachment of the Committee, or override itscontrary resolution. The vote of each Member shallbe recorded.

In a direct resolution, verified complaint or resolutionof impeachment is filed by at least one-third of allthe Members of the House, the same shallconstitute the Articles of Impeachment.

The Articles of Impeachment is then sent to theSenate for trial, which have the sole power to tryand decide all cases of impeachment. A fixednumber of members of House of Representativesshall act as prosecutors and the full Senate will actas the jurors who shall be on oath or affirmation.When the President of the Philippines is on trial, theChief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside,but shall not vote.

The Senate then votes in open session on each Article of Impeachment. No person shall beconvicted without the concurrence of two-thirds ofall the Members of the Senate.

Rules of House of Representatives JusticeCommittee

Rules on Impeachment of House ofRepresentatives

Rules on Impeachment Trial of the Senate

History
http://www.lawphil.net/current/impeachment/Philippine%20Senate%20Rules%20on%20Impeachment%20Trials.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/current/impeachment/Philippine%20Senate%20Rules%20on%20Impeachment%20Trials.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/current/impeachment/Philippine%20Senate%20Rules%20on%20Impeachment%20Trials.html


16/25

Cons t i tu t iona l

Impeachment has its origin in the English common law,found its way in the U.S. Constitution of 1787, and wasadopted by the 1935 Philippine CommonwealthConstitution.

1935 Constitutional Provisions

ARTICLE IX - IMPEACHMENT

Sect ion 1 . The President, the Vice-President,the Justices of the Supreme Court, and the

Auditor General, shall be removed from officeon impeachment for any conviction of,culpable violation of the Constitution, treason,bribery, or other high crimes.

Sect ion 2 . The House of Representatives bya vote of two-thirds of all its Members, shallhave the sole power of impeachment.

Sect ion 3 . The Senate shall have the solepower to try all impeachment. When sitting for

that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath oraffirmation. When the President of thePhilippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of theSupreme Court shall preside. No person shallbe convicted without the concurrence of three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate.

Sect ion 4 . Judgment in cases ofimpeachment shall not extend further than toremoval from office and disqualification to holdand enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profitunder the Government of the Philippines, butthe party convicted shall nevertheless beliable and subject to prosecution, trial, andpunishment, according to law.

1973 Constitutional Provisions


17/25

ARTICLE IX - IMPEACHMENT

Sect ion 1 . The President, the Vice-President,the Justices of the Supreme Court, and the

Auditor General, shall be removed from officeon impeachment for any conviction of,culpable violation of the Constitution, treason,bribery, or other high crimes.

Sect ion 2 . The House of Representatives bya vote of two-thirds of all its Members, shallhave the sole power of impeachment.

Sect ion 3 . The Senate shall have the sole

power to try all impeachment. When sitting forthat purpose, the Senators shall be on oath oraffirmation. When the President of thePhilippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of theSupreme Court shall preside. No person shallbe convicted without the concurrence of three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate.

Sect ion 4 . Judgment in cases ofimpeachment shall not extend further than to

removal from office and disqualification to holdand enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profitunder the Government of the Philippines, butthe party convicted shall nevertheless beliable and subject to prosecution, trial, andpunishment, according to law.

Ac tual Use

Although President Joseph Estrada is the firstPhilippine President that was impeached, there hadalready been three instances of attempt to impeachprevious presidents.


18/25

In 1949, there was attempt to impeach ElpidioQuirino on the ground of culpable violations of theConstitution. The move was voted down in theHouse of Representative because of partisanshipwhere the House was dominated by the samepolitical party as that of President Quirino.

This was followed by impeachment attempts in1963 against Diosdado Macapagal and in 1986against Ferdinand Marcos. Like in the case ofPresident Quirino, politics and partisanship causedthe failure of the mopve to impeach to reach therequired number of votes in the legislature.

Newspapers and Magazine Opinions and Articles

IMPEACHMENT 101

By Je r ry Bar ican

9 Nov em ber 2000, INQUIRER

Now that more than a third of the House of Representativeshave signed the Articles of Impeachment, how and when will itgo to the Senate?

The Constitution says that in case the verified complaint orresolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all themembers of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles ofImpeachment, and trial by the Senate shall proceed forthwith.

In brief, the Rules of the House notwithstanding, the

Constitution permits a third or more of its membership to file theverified resolution directly before the Senate.

There are, however, some important technicalities. Whatconstitutes "all the members of the House"? Is it all therepresentative districts plus the number of party-list seatsrequired to fulfill the constitutional requirement of "20 percent of


19/25

the total number of representatives," whether filled or not? Or isit to be based on the existing districts plus the existing party-listseats?

The former is a higher number than the 73 required by the latterformula. To be safe and beyond challenge, the opposition mayprefer to submit more signatures than both minimumrequirements.

The House also has one important task remaining. It needs toelect the House managers who will act as the prosecutors ofthe case before the Senate.

When is also significant. If the articles are filed immediately, the

Senate is convened into a High Court of Impeachment, and theSenate jueteng hearings must stop in deference to the higherconstitutional obligations. My guess is that some in theopposition will prefer to delay the filing until at least afterEdward Serapio, the alleged recipient of YolandaRicaforte's jueteng funds, has testified. But the politicalpressure to file may be more powerful than logic.

2. What rules does the Senate follow?

Its own rules, or such rules as it may borrow. To speed mattersup, it may decide to adopt either the Rules of Court or theimpeachment rules of the US Senate, with a few amendments.

If it adopts the US format, each senator is sworn in as a juror.The Chief Justice presides and makes all legal rulings. Thesenators, like all jurors, hear the arguments but do not activelyparticipate. They, however, may submit questions to the ChiefJustice to answer or to put to the witnesses.

The managers of the House present their charges while thelawyers for the President argue his case in turn, as in any courttrial.

In this function, the Senate does not act as a legislative body,but as a judicial one. It therefore can directly subpoenawitnesses and documents, including bank records covered by


20/25

the bank secrecy law. It may choose to adjourn from time totime to reconvene to perform its legislative functions. Or it maynot.

3. What standard does the Senate need to follow in order toconvict?

The Constitution cites as reasons for impeachment andremoval from office the following: "culpable violation of theConstitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other highcrimes, or betrayal of public trust."

Note that the constitutional violation needs to be culpable. Also,all these, except betrayal of public trust, are characterized as

"high crimes," an important point in determining the standard ofproof required.

Ultimately, the Senate through its rules, the Chief Justicethrough his rulings, and the conscience of each senator willdetermine the real degree of proof. However, this is not a mereadministrative tribunal but a high court of impeachment ("highcrimes," as the Constitution refers to the charges).

Moreover, one does not easily set aside the electoral mandate,

especially that of a president. It may be argued that a higherstandard of proof than mere preponderance of evidence isrequired. Perhaps "beyond reasonable doubt," as criminal lawrequires, or at the least, "clear and convincing," a legal testmidway between the former two such tests.

4. How long can it take?

If due process is to be followed, longer than most people think.The failed impeachment trial of US President Andrew Johnsonbefore the Senate in 1867 took three full months of non-stoptrial involving 11 articles of impeachment. The list of chargesagainst the President runs, we are told, to some 17 charges.

And the election campaign for half the Senate seats begins inFebruary, the election in May, and the Congress' term expiresat the end of June. Of course, ultimately, impeachment is a


21/25

political trial masquerading as a judicial one. Its speed will bedetermined by politics more than law.

5. Can the trial continue after the 2001 election?

Probably. The Senate, unlike the House, is a continuing body.However, it may be difficult to defend the replacement of many"jurors"--perhaps half--midway or later through the trial. But thisissue is for the Senate itself to resolve.

6. How many senators are needed to convict?

Heretofore, the well-established rule was that "two-thirds of allthe members of the Senate" was to be computed on thenumber of seats, vacant or not. In short, 16. However, duringthe Visiting Forces Agreement ratification, the Senate adopteda rule interpreting the phrase "all the members of the Senate" toexclude vacancies. But even the Senate by itself can't amendthe constitutional provision.

There is consequently some ambiguity on this issue becausetwo-thirds of 22 sitting senators numbers less than 15. Thisambiguity favors the President who can dispute a removal byless than 16 senators as constitutionally inadequate and legally

characterize the result as an acquittal.

Anything less than 16 votes risks having two persons claimingthe presidency and something close to splitting the nation inhalf. There are therefore strong constitutional and pragmaticcases for needing 16 votes to convict.

7. What happens if the President is convicted by the Senate?

The President is removed from office, disqualified to hold any

office under the Republic, and remains subject to prosecutionaccording to law. The Vice President becomes President. Thenew President appoints a Vice President from among themembers of the Senate or House to serve the unexpired termof the Vice President (i.e., until 2004), subject to confirmationby a majority vote of both Houses of Congress


22/25

OBSTACLES TO IMPEACHMENT

By Isagani A . Cruz

28 Octob er 2000

LET'S have no illusions about impeachment. As a method ofremoving the President, it has more bark than bite. Describedby Edward S. Corwin as ''the most formidable weapon in thearsenal of democracy,'' it is dismissed by Clinton Rossiter,another acknowledged authority on the American presidency,as ''a rusted blunderbuss'' occasionally brandished but hardlyever fired.

They're talking of American democracy, though, not thePhilippine brand. In the United States, President AndrewJohnson was impeached and escaped conviction by one votecast by a senator who resisted partisan pressure and heededonly his conscience. President Bill Clinton was also impeachedbut the members of Congress crossed party lines to support or

denounce him. President Richard Nixon did not have to wait tobe impeached and bite the bullet. Realizing that there wereenough Democrat and Republican legislators to oust him fromoffice, he resigned.

In this country, it is doubtful if the impeachment of PresidentEstrada can at least get off the ground, given the dubiousmotivations of our own kind of Congress. At the very start of theLower House investigation, Chavit Singson was prevented fromsubmitting his evidence of Erap's involvement in the juetengexpos. The motion to gag him, filed by an obscurecongressman, was supported by colleagues alleged to havebeen assured, before or after the aborted hearing, of goodiesfrom Malacaang.

The vote of one-third of the 219 members of the House ofRepresentatives is needed to affirm a favorable


23/25

recommendation of the committee on justice or to override itscontrary decision. This means that the 46(?) members whohave signed the impeachment resolution need 27 moresignatories to complete the required vote of 73. On theoptimistic assumption that at least 10 more sympathizers willeventually join them, there will still be a deficit of 17 votes thatwill not be easy to fill.

The President's determination to kill the impeachmentmovement will make it difficult for its proponents to persuadetheir colleagues to reject the powerful blandishments of theadministration. It is, after all, actually fighting for its life. Notably,there were no obvious similar efforts in the White House whenClinton--and for that matter even Nixon--was under fir. But this

is not Washington, D.C., where certain proprieties areobserved. This is Metro Manila, where anything goes in politicalskullduggery.

Things are not any brighter in the Senate, which used to be thebastion of legislative independence. Now it is seen as anothersatellite of Malacaang, with no more gumption than the Housebelow. The charade in the blue ribbon committee hearings is aforerunner of the President's trial in the unlikely event that theimpeachment materializes and the Senate is called to sit in

judgment. From the one-sided conduct of the current hearings,one can say that President Estrada's acquittal is a foregoneconclusion.

The leanings of the Senate are all too obvious. When Singsonwas testifying, the blue ribbon committee was like a Court of theInquisition. The senators interrogated him not so much to elicitinformation on his expos as to discredit his testimony. He wasfrom the very beginning considered a hostile witness and

treated accordingly. By contrast, the witnesses for Mr. Estrada,namely, his wife Loi and his two sons, Jinggoy and Jude, werehandled tenderly if not obsequiously. The senators exchangedbarbs with Singson but only pleasantries with the President'sfamily.


24/25

To take just one example, the interrogators seemed too eagerto believe Jude's explanation that he was on a medical missionwhen he flew to Mindanao--on the presidential plane no lessand with his barkada to boot--and watched his inamorataperform at a floor show. The senators who nit-picked Singsondid not want to know more about Jude's expedition. Theaudience was expecting them to pin the witness down, but thatdidn't happen.

Intellectual integrity is hardly a virtue of the present Senate.Practically all the members are motivated by some selfishinterest, political or otherwise, that is likely to be the criterionwhen they cast their vote on the innocence or guilt of therespondent. The character of the evidence is only secondary

and will not matter in the end. What will matter is the characterof the senators themselves.

One of Mr. Estrada's open supporters, who opposed the Senateinvestigation at the outset, is known to be seeking appointmentas Philippine ambassador to the United Nations. A ladysenator's husband is the president of a construction companydoing business with the government. Another senator'shusband and sister are holding non-tenure positions in whichthey can be replaced at the President's pleasure. A thirdsenator's mother is in the foreign service and can also berecalled at will. One senator is rumored to be aspiring for theSenate presidency. A number of reelectionist senators arecareful not to be excluded from the administration's officialticket. Others dare not offend the President for fear of hisvindictiveness, and still others are simply hoping to berewarded for simple mindless loyalty.

The few who will not be swayed by self-interest are pitifully few

and cannot make up the two-thirds vote needed to convict therespondent. They will probably be among those who votedagainst the Visiting Forces Agreement, possibly to be joined bysome stalwarts like Sen. Ramon Magsaysay Jr. who forfeitedhis assured slot in the LAMP ticket and resigned from that partybecause of his disgust over the conduct of the Senateinvestigation. But even as the opposition hopes that its


25/25

members will stand firm, it must also be prepared againstdefections to the President's more comfortable camp with all itspromised gratitude.

The Constitution provides that where the President of thePhilippines is impeached, the Chief Justice shall preside at thetrial. Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. is a fair-minded judge,but it is doubtful if he can stem the tide of prejudice that willprevent a dispassionate assessment of the basic issue beforethe Senate. That issue is not what rewards await its members.That issue is whether, on the basis of the evidence against him,the President is fit to remain in his high office until the end of histerm in 2004 or deserves to be booted out immediately for hisunforgivable offenses.

the nature of an impeachment trial.docx

Documents