Impeachment in a nutshell

Gregorio Miguel Pallugna

THE clarificatory hearings now being conducted by the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives are making waves as the plot thickens with the appearance and testimony of no less than members and officers of the Supreme Court itself. Lawyers are divided as to the sufficiency of the grounds brought against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno with some saying that impeachment must only be resorted to for the most serious of offenses and not for singular acts of error. Apparently, as some have observed, the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona a few years back has set a precedence which established that an impeachable official can be removed for a fault as simple as failing to declare one’s assets accurately.

We therefore ask ourselves what degree of wrong can be a ground to remove a high official such as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The legal arguments can be long and infinite, but ultimately useless. There is absolutely no point in arguing about the legalities of the sufficiency of the grounds for impeachment because the unquestionable fact is that an impeachment proceeding is a purely political process. It is the means by which the people of the republic have ensured that the nation can hold the highest officials accountable for whatever ground conceivable, even as simple as having a mistress, lying in an interview, or even cursing in public. But the Constitution sets exclusive grounds for impeachment, some adamant legalists would insist. They are correct and wrong at the same time. True, there are exclusive grounds but one of these grounds is “betrayal of public trust” which could mean anything and everything under the sun. In short, ultimately, an official can be impeached simply because the people do not trust him anymore.

The political nature of an impeachment process can be better understood when we analyze the processes by which public officials are held accountable by the people. Local officials such as mayors and governors who have lost the trust of the people may be removed by recall, or by filing charges before the office of the ombudsman or the courts, or ultimately by not voting for them in the next elections. Congressmen and senators can be removed by filing cases against them before the Ombudsman, the courts, or even before the Congress itself, or also by not re-electing them. The justices of the supreme court however could not be brought before the ombudsman or any other judicial or quasi-judicial body because of, among others, the very fact that all decisions of any court or office can ultimately be reviewed by the Supreme Court itself under its “expanded jurisdiction” provided for by the constitution. Technically, all questions can be brought before the Supreme Court because it is the body that determines if any act of a public official or body is in line with the constitution. It will therefore be an absurd situation if one, some or all justices of the Supreme Court will be ordered removed by the Ombudsman but the decision of removing them will be subject to the review of the same justices being held accountable.

The only way to remove a justice of the Supreme Court therefore is through impeachment. This is done by the filing of a complaint before the House of Representatives which decides whether the official should be “impeached,” meaning that he should be put on trial for impeachment before the Senate acting as an impeachment court. After the Senate hears the case, it can acquit or convict the justice of the Supreme Court. Once convicted, that is the end of the line and no other procedural remedy can be had by the impeached official. Some insist that the decision of the impeachment court can be questioned before the Supreme Court, raising again its “expanded jurisdiction.” That is absolutely wrong. Imagine the situation if all of the justices of the Supreme Court will be impeached because they have connived to rule that the Kalayaan islands belong to China. They would most certainly be impeached and convicted, all of them! But if, as others wrongly argue, the decision of the Senate can be reviewed by the Supreme Court itself, these same justices will surely reverse the decision. In effect, there will be no accountability for these justices and they will hold power until retirement, with impunity. The only way to ensure that they are not absolutely supreme is with the political process of impeachment being reviewable by no one except by the people themselves through election. If the people do not agree with the decision of the Senate acting as an impeachment court, then they should not re-elect the senators who voted against their will. This is the essence of democracy.

Since impeachment is a purely political process, meaning the decision of the impeachment court could not be reviewed by the Supreme Court or any other body but the people, the only real consideration of the Senators in arriving at a decision will be the will of the majority of the people who will vote in the next elections. The real ground for impeachment is not culpable violation of the constitution because honestly, who even knows what “culpable” means? The ground is not murder or other high crimes, bribery or graft and corruption. The real ground is simply that the Filipino people do not want the official to serve them any longer and we can call that ground by the name of “betrayal of public trust.” After all, no one can review the will of the people.

That is impeachment — a purely political exercise of the supreme will of the people. No more, no less.