The impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona is very educational for everyone. Every national TV Station has lawyers giving an explanation of everything that is happening, including the legal 
definition of terms used. It would have been a pity if the suggestion of some senators were followed to get away with the TV coverage.
One does not have to be a lawyer to understand the whole proceedings. In fact, since the impeachment is a political process, it should be easy for non-lawyers to understand what is going on.
I do not agree however to the claim of some that the rules of court should be completely followed. The senate has its own impeachment rules and that is the main basis for the proceedings. The rules however are not that complete and encompassing so that it says the rules of court shall be ‘supplicatory’, meaning that it will be followed where the senate rules is silent.
The sad thing, for me, is the procedure that the Prosecution will have to present all their 8 charges before the defense will present theirs. There is the danger that by the time all the 8 charges are presented the judges and the people would have forgotten already what the prosecutors have presented.
I believe the defense should present their side of each charge after the prosecutors have presented theirs. The argument that this is the rule of procedure can simply be changed by the senate since this is their hearing and not the courts’.
At this moment, the prosecution is still in the 1st charge, which is charge No. 2 because it was bogged down with all the technicalities raised.
But, so far, I believe, the Chief Justice is guilty and should be removed, just on this charge alone. Why? Because he was not honest enough with his SALN and has undervalued his properties and has not even included some.
The qualification of the Chief Justice is such that he must be beyond doubt. Some of the crimes listed in law books may not be impeachable offenses but there is a “catch-all” phrase which is the “Betrayal of Public Trust.” If we cannot trust the CJ in small things then how can we trust him in bigger things.
For me there are no legal arguments on this matter.
On the argument that the impeachment case is invalid because it has not been verified by some of the congressmen is too late for the defense to use because the case is already in the senate. This is a question that belongs to the House of representatives and should be settled there.
At any rate, the people who claim that the CJ did not get a fair trial in the HOR better read their copy of the constitution. I do not know exactly where but it says somewhere that when 1/3 or more of the members of the HOR signs the petition for impeachment it becomes the formal charge and the same can already be forwarded to the senate for the proper hearing.
In the Senate he is represented by a battery of brilliant lawyers headed by no less than a retired Justice of the SC and he is getting a very fair trial. So what fairness are they looking for?
0 comments:
Post a Comment