The Constitutionality of CJ Corona Impeachment By Robert Ramirez

The impeachment drama already ended, Chief Justice Renato Corona has been convicted by the Senate sitting as the impeachment court via 20-3 vote for culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust owing to his failure to disclose all properties in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALn). But whether or not the Impeachment proceeding against the Chief Justice is constitutional or whether the judgment is within the meaning of our constitution remains a question for some legal luminaries. Last July 25, the Supreme Court junked the petition which sought the nullification of the impeachment complaint filed against the Chief Justice as the case become moot and academic. Thus, the question remains unanswered. Allow me to give some Freshman Law Student insights on this issue. A. The Impeachment Process Under the Constitution only the following public officers may be impeached: The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman. This list of officers is exclusive. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment. The grounds for impeachment are: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. These grounds are exclusive and offenses not falling within these parameters shall not be sufficient for impeachment purposes. There are two methods in initiating an impeachment complaint. First, the process begins at the House of Representatives, which has the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. A verified complaint must be filed by either a Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof. Once the verified complaint has been filed it shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof. In the committee hearings, a vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded. . Under this method, the respondent is heard first before a vote in the committee is taken. Obviously, this process takes a longer route to impeach a public official. If however, the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed. Under this method, no hearing is required and no voting is actually taken. This was the route chosen by the 188 congressmen in impeaching the chief magistrate. Apparently, this process is a more expedient way in impeaching a public officer as long as a number in the House is secured. One hundred eighty eight (188) is more than the one-third the constitution requires, but is there a verified complaint? This was one of the arguments raised in assailing the constitutionality of the impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice. Their argument is that some of the congressmen signed the complaint without reading and appreciating its contents and supporting documents and thus violated the due process and their duty to determine the sufficiency in form and substance of the complaint as well as the existence of probable cause. Rule IV, Section 13 of the Rules of th Procedures in Impeachment Proceedings adopted by the 15 Congress provides that the complaint/resolution must, at the time of filing, be verified and sworn to before the Secretary General by each of the Members constituting at least one-third (1/3) of all Members of the House and that the contents of verification shall include a sworn statement that they have caused the said complaint/resolution to be prepared and have READ the contents thereof. Based on the public admission of some of the congressmen that they did not even read the

entire complaint and that only powerpoint slides were presented to them is an evidence that the complaint was not verified. But what about the other congressmen who claimed that they have read the contents of the complaint? Is it necessary to investigate that each one of them has read the contents of the complaint? I think the complaint that bears the one hundred eighty eight signatures of the congressmen and a sworn statement that they have read the contents thereof is enough that the complaint was verified. Now, whether they have actually read the contents of the complaint or not is a different question, it is as if questioning the wisdom of our representatives. B. Senators Judgment The Senate via 20-3 vote already convicted the Chief Justice for failure to disclose all of his properties in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN). This means that the violation of SALN law is already an impeachable offense. Some argue that the violation of SALN Law is not an impeachable offense. In fact, Senator Miriam Santiago in explaining her vote used the legal maxim of ejusdem generis, if the ground for impeachment is not among the offenses listed in the Constitution, that ground must b e a high crime of equal gravity and magnitude as the specified offenses of culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, or graft and corruption. Inaccurate entries in SALN is not even a crime as the public official is bound to correct the entries they mad