Only five years after the highly divisive impeachment trial of the late Chief Justice Renato Corona, the nation is again faced with the possibility of not just one, but three high-level government officials being impeached for alleged culpable violations of the Constitution. And this is not even counting the impeachment complaints against President Rodrigo Duterte that was dropped in May for lack of substance, and against Vice President Leni Robredo that have not been endorsed by a member of the House of Representatives.
The House of Representatives, which has recently become an arena for political persecution with the supermajority threatening to impose its will on any official that crosses its leaxers’ path or that of the President, now has the responsibility of determining whether the impeachment complaints filed against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Commission on Elections Chairman Andres Bautista – both already endorsed by several House members – would be sent for trial in the Senate.
Another impeachment complaint, this time against Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, is expected to be filed shortly by the Victims Against Crime and Corruption (VACC), which has also filed impeachment complaints against both Sereno and Bautista. With President Duterte on a warpath with Morales, the aunt of his son-in-law, it would not be surprising if several House members endorse it.
Impeachment is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution to enable the representatives of the people to make high-level officials accountable for their actions. Impeachment is considered a political process, and because the Constitution does not explicitly define the level of “culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes or betrayal of public trust” that merits impeachment, the House of Representatives is given a wide leeway of discretion.
The House committee on justice only has to decide whether the complaint has substance, is sufficient in form and grounds, and if there is probable cause, and then endorses it to the plenary session, where only one-third of the vote of all House members is needed to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial. A two-thirds of the Senate votes (16 of 24) is needed to convict after a trial by the Senate constituted as a court.
With the administration coalition enjoying a super majority in the House, it can send the impeached official to Senate trial in the mere say-so of the House leaders or the President. While it is hoped that the senators would be more circumspect in making a determination of guilt or innocence, the fact remains that the administration also enjoys a big majority in the Senate and getting 16 senators to vote for conviction would not be as difficult as it seems.
It was far more difficult to impeach officials under the 1935 Constitution because two-thirds of the vote of House members was needed to bring the impeachment to the Senate for trial, and three-fourths of the Senate members (18 of 24) was needed to convict. In addition, the 1987 Constitution widened the scope of impeachable crimes to include “graft and corruption” and “betrayal of Public trust,” the parameters for which were not clearly defined by the charter.
Unless the President tells the House leaders to stand down, as he did in the impeachment complaint against Robredo, there is a big chance the impeachment complaints against Sereno and Bautista – and perhaps against Morales if and when it is filed and endorsed by a member of the House — would go to the Senate for trial.
Duterte has repeatedly locked horns with the Chief Justice in his brutal drug war and on the rule of law, and has warned the judiciary several times for issuing temporary restraining orders that, he said, are blocking his reform and economic agendas. The impeachment of Bautista, on the other hand, has been seen as a boost to the election protest of Duterte ally former Sen. Bongbong Marcos against Vice President Leni Robredo.
Morales, on the other hand, has been in a prolonged word war with Duterte, and her impeachment has been seen as a pressure for the Ombudsman to act favorably on the cases against administration allies.
The indiscriminate filing of impeachment complaints sends a chilling message to impeachable officials that they have to toe the line or face impeachment. And this is where impeachment becomes a tool for political persecution.
With the nation divided between those who abide by the Rule of Law, and those who would sacrifice human rights and democracy purportedly for peace and progress, it is incumbent upon the members of the House – and the Senate if the complaints go to trial – to, in the words of San Beda Law Dean Fr. Ranhilio Aquino “strike the reasonable balance between keeping to constitutional standards when deciding whether or not to impeach and keeping the mechanism available against seriously erring high officials of the Republic.”
During the Corona trial, Fr. Aquino reminded us that it is the strict adherence to the Rule of Law that prevents abuses by the state or by any citizen. He said: “Under the Rule of Law, a State is answerable to the law, as is any citizen. The State has to be controlled through institutional techniques especially designed to render possible the exercise of power and render its abuse impossible. When agents of the State believe themselves empowered to act in any which way against any citizen, President or peace-loving, law-abiding Filipino, that is exactly when the problem of control becomes urgent.”
Before the start of Corona’s impeachment trial, then Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, as presiding judge, stressed the importance of the trial: “Although the ostensible respondent in the trial before us is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, we cannot escape the reality that, in a larger sense, the conduct of this trial and its outcome will necessarily have a serious impact on the entire nation. Its success or failure to achieve the purpose for which the Constitution has provided this mechanism as part of our system of checks and balances and of public accountability, may spell the success or failure of our democratic institutions, the strengthening or weakening of our sense of justice as a people, our stability or disintegration as a nation, and the triumph or demise of the rule of law in our land.”
Enrile’s words also apply to these current wave of impeachments. It wouldn’t be just Sereno, Bautista or Morales who would be under scrutiny; the entire nation would be under litigation – whether its institutions can stand the test of fairness, justice, and the Rule of Law, and whether the people themselves can distinguish between democracy and demagoguery.