By Philip M. Lustre Jr.
AFTER three months of exhausting public hearings, the witnesses who testified at the House of Representatives’ committee on justice chaired by Rep. Reynaldo Umali, could hardly point with certainty any impeachable offense allegedly committed by Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno. But it does not mean the Chief Justice is off the hook.
On the contrary, the committee, which is derisively called the Umali impeachment committee, is brandishing what it could regard an ace in its sleeve, or its trump card. If the committee could not pinpoint a specific impeachable offense under the 1987 Constitution, why not invent it for all intents and purposes?
At the moment, the Umali impeachment committee, according to its chair, Reynaldo Umali, plans to hold three or more public hearings to establish probable cause on the impeachment complaint, which an obscure lawyer has filed against her. His committee would likely vote on it before the end of the month.
If it musters a majority, the committee will bring it on or before March 7 to the House as a plenary body. It needs a vote of at least a third of its members before its goes to the Senate, which will convene as an impeachment court to hold a public trial and decide to remove or not the Chief Justice.
It takes two-thirds vote of the members of the Senate to remove her. A negative vote of at least seven senators would mean dismissal of the impeachment complaint and the Chief Justice. The public trial could last for several weeks or several months depending on the nature of the articles of impeachment the House would bring to the Senate.
The 1987 Constitution says impeachable officials could be removed from office on six major grounds: treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. Of the six grounds, betrayal of public trust is the broadest. This means it could be used, altered, or twisted specifically to seek Sereno’s removal from office.
The witnesses, who appeared at the Umali impeachment committee, articulated their personal gripes, and claimed managerial and administrative lapses and issues, but declined to state or say categorical impeachable offense by the Chief Justice. The witnesses were asked several times about the impeachable offense, but they gave hazy answers.
At the moment, certain members of the Umali impeachment committee are tinkering with the legal theory that the alleged managerial and administrative lapses on the Chief Justice’s part could constitute negligence. In their twisted - or malevolent - view, negligence could be interpreted as betrayal of public trust.
They take the limited view that betrayal of trust is an open ended ground to include other offenses. Since it is open ended, it follows that anything, including negligence, is a ground for impeachment. The expanded phrase is becoming to be the main tool of oppression in her impeachment case.
Legal observers have a different interpretation. Although betrayal of public trust encompasses many areas that have not been fully explored by framers of the 1987 Constitution, it logically follows that it is equally as potent, destructive, and odious as any of the five other grounds of impeachment.
The criminal intent or even malice of betrayal of public trust should be as grave as any of the five other grounds. If ever negligence is viewed as part of betrayal of public trust, it boggles the mind when it is compared with treason or plunder.
Can negligence be regarded as equivalent to treason, plunder, or any high crime like genocide, or mass killings? Can the level of culpability in negligent acts be equal to the five other grounds of impeachment?
These are interesting questions which Umali, as chair of the impeachment committee, and his cohorts would have to answer.
Incidentally, lawmakers involved in the Sereno impeachment suit could hardly indicate their willingness to appear as prosecutors if ever it goes to the Senate for a public trial. They could not even commit to participate in the drafting of the articles of impeachment.
How the Umali impeachment committee, in particular, and the House plenary body, in general, would work on this legal theory, which to some lawyers is tantamount to a legal fiction, remains to be been. But in these days of fake news and alternative facts, anything under the sun could be possible.
How the Senate as an impeachment court would take this issue remains to be seen. But legal luminaries, particularly experts on constitutional law, find it revolting – or downright ridiculous - to view negligence as betrayal of public trust.
Meanwhile, Sereno prefers to slug it out in the Senate, where she believes she has better chances of explaining her side. The Umali impeachment committee has become a kangaroo court where the rules are stacked against her.
Sereno knows she stands not even a ghost of a chance in the Umali impeachment committee. It exists to hound and oppress her.
No comments:
Post a Comment