By Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV
(A speech delivered by Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV at a forum held at the UP National College of Public Administration and Governance, Diliman, Quezon City on 04 January 2012)
For the past several weeks, numerous distinguished lawyers, political analysts and opinion columnists have given their take on the upcoming impeachment trial. Most have stressed that it is a judicial trial whose verdict shall be determined solely by evidence. However, during the impeachment trial of US Pres. Bill Clinton, all the evidence pointed to the fact that he committed perjury and obstruction of justice and yet he was acquitted by the US Senate in a vote where all Democrats sided with Pres. Clinton. Now, following the line of our local experts, was it merely coincidence that all the Democrats appreciated the evidence exactly the same way, or it was never treated as a judicial trial by the US Senators to begin with? Moreover, if an impeachment trial were meant to be solely evidence-based, then why didn’t our Constitutional framers just give that power to the Supreme Court whose members are supposed to be experienced judges? And whenever a SC justice committed an offense, the SC could just expel him through an ethics case similar to our current procedure in the Senate.
I researched on the true nature of impeachments to guide me on how I should eventually make a decision. To this, I focused on the US version of impeachment since it is a virtual copy of our own. True enough, what I found out was, there is not a single book or reference I encountered that says that impeachment is a judicial trial solely based on evidence. To the contrary, all of these references defined or referred to impeachment as a political process. Matthew J. Franck, in his 1996 essay, The Supreme Court and the Politics of Impeachment, stated clearly and I quote, “And although the Senate sits as a court during impeachment trials, it is not a court, but a political body deliberating on what are properly considered political offenses.” The closest reference was when Alexander Hamilton described in the Federalist No. 65, the judicial character of the Senate in relation to its function of judging in impeachment trials. But the political nature of impeachment was immediately made clear by Hamilton when he stated that the Supreme Court could not be relied upon with this task because “it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that may happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives” which may be “dangerous to the public tranquility.”
In a 2010 paper written by Susan Navarro Smelcer commissioned by the Congressional Research Service of the US Congress to define the role of the Senate in impeachments, she states that, ”While the Judicial branch was designed by the Framers to be independent of political influence, the methods of appointment and removal were designed to be political.” Charles Gardner Geyh, the author of the 2006 book, When Courts and Congress Collide:The Struggle for Control of America’s justice System stresses further that, ”The removal process is political in at least three respects: (1) it is political in its originalist sense of the term, in so far as it is a remedy for political crimes against a body politic; (2) it is political in the sense of being a process that is subject to resolution by popular or political majorities, through their representatives in one of the political branches; and (3) it can be political in the sense that it can be openly partisan.”
Having established that impeachment is a political process, therefore, my verdict should not be based solely on evidence as it now becomes a matter of public policy. And the over-arching policy issue in this whole impeachment episode is, whether the conviction or acquittal of Chief Justice Renato Corona would be good for our country? To resolve this, I intend to use political acceptability as the sole criterion to evaluate the projected outcomes of either policy alternative of conviction or acquittal. To determine political acceptability, I intend to use policy research tools such as quantitative and qualitative researches and stakeholder analysis. These, along with extensive consultations, could very well filter the noise of the mob and undue media influence from the true will of the people.
One might ask, if we were representatives of the people and, therefore, entrusted with the authority to decide on our own what is in the best interest of the public, then why wouldn’t we just decide, based on our own personal and ideological values? If the decision was merely for ordinary pieces of legislation, then I would not hesitate to use that prerogative. But an impeachment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is not a daily occurrence and it has very serious short-term and long-term implications to our fragile Democracy. So, I believe, getting as many people involved in the decision-making process is very much warranted.
Again, one might ask, as one of my colleagues did, why can’t we just conduct a referendum to resolve this dilemma? Well, the answer is quite simple – our country is not a direct democracy. We are, in fact, a representative democracy wherein the people indirectly govern their country through elected representatives. It is the representatives’ discretion whether to consult his constituents or assume that he is omniscient. More importantly, referendum is not the procedure stated in our Constitution.
This does not mean, however, that the evidence should be completely disregarded. Definitely not! Because the strength or weakness of the evidence, and how they are presented could very well affect the political acceptability of either policy alternative. Having said this, it would help if the prosecutors and defense counsels would not to be too technical in their presentations. Ultimately, they would have to win the hearts and minds of the people.
As regards the appreciation of evidence, we have to bear in mind that the Constitution and the Senate Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials did not specify the quantum of evidence required to convict. Is it beyond reasonable doubt as what is used in criminal proceedings? Is it preponderance of evidence as what is used in civil cases? Or is it substantial evidence as what is used in administrative proceedings? Since it is not specified, therefore, a senator can just raise or lower the quantum of evidence required to suit his or her inclination.
In the end, regardless how the impeachment trial ends, it will be one of the defining moments in our nation’s history as we would have shown the whole world that our Democracy works.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –
Rene Saguisag comments on Trillanes’s speech
Posted in Interaksyon.com
Dear Senator Sonny:
I agree with your position, if I understood it correctly, on how the people and their elected Representatives may not be excluded in the national inquest now going in the trial of unelected Chief Justice (CJ) Rene Corona on issues involving the heart of government functions (not that cockamamie plagiarism charge).
You in the legislature are elected and can be rewarded or punished by the electorate in periodic elections. Your loyalty is to the people. Justices are unelected and amor-con-amor with the appointing power and there must a check to their abuse by the people, directly, or through their elected representatives. They hold office until 70.
The upcoming trial will enable our people to see how the system works, in terms of check and balance.
One issue has to do with Rene’s acquisitions.
We now know that we had a Student Chief Justice pala who could do tough time-consuming doctoral work while helping decide litigated and administrative cases in the thousands and heading a bureaucracy of thousands. 24/7yata. (The SC and UST have to review the relevant policy in the public interest. No more Justice in doctoral studies. Can one imagine U.S. CJ Roberts going back to Harvard for his doctorate?)
Hundreds of my students over the last few semesters I have sent out, in vain, for info on assets and the handling of the billions of the Judiciary Development Fund, which under Sec. 3 of P.D. No. 1949 of 1984, is the sole responsibility of the Chief Justice. On the other hand, under Sec. 8 of RA. No. 6713, we clearly stated that public servants “have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know [their] assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests including those of their spouses. . . .” Uncle Jovy Salonga, Tito Guingona and Orly Mercado and I had co-authored the law which I sponsored on the floor and shepherded all the way to conference and approval of the bicameral report. ]
Since impeachment is a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men involving offenses that strike at the very life or the orderly workings of government, more speech, not less – J. Douglas – should be the norm. It is too important to leave only to Senators-Judges, who should hold their peace and not stop the sovereign people and their Representatives from talking. Once we smoke out the Coronas’ asset statements, which they are holding very close to their vests, then people can talk freely and comment, why is X item not included? Why is Y understated/valued. Why is Z, etc. etc.
R.A. No. 6713 is a sunshine law. Rene [Corona] cannot hide behind an illegal self-serving interpretation exempting the SC from a requirement the executive and legislative branches comply every year, following April 30 of each year. The SC complied only in 1989. Then the troglodytes came.
Best, and have a good weekend.
Rene
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Press Release
January 8, 2012
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Trillanes: All references point to impeachment as political process
In order to guide him on how he should eventually make a decision, Senator Antonio “Sonny” F. Trillanes IV said he researched on the true nature of impeachments, focusing on the US version of the impeachment that is a virtual copy of our own.
“True enough, what I found out was, there is not a single book or reference I encountered that says that impeachment is a judicial trial solely based on evidence. To the contrary, all of these references defined or referred to impeachment as a political process,” Trillanes said.
Trillanes cited numerous books and references to justify the point that the impeachment process is a political process, such as Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 65, Matthew J. Franck’s The Supreme Court and the Politics of Impeachment and Charles Gardner Geyh’s When Courts and Congress Collide:The Struggle for Control of America’s justice System.
Offering a hint as to how he will vote, Trillanes said the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona should be treated as a political process where the parties are expected to battle for public opinion and political acceptability.
Trillanes, one of the senator-judges in Corona’s trial, said he won’t decide based purely on the evidence that the prosecution and defense panels will present but on the basis of what would be best for the country.
“Having established that impeachment is a political process, therefore, my verdict should not be based solely on evidence as it now becomes a matter of public policy,” Trillanes said in a speech delivered at a forum hosted by the University of the Philippine National College of Public Administration and Governance.
He added: “And the over-arching policy issue in this whole impeachment episode is whether the conviction or acquittal of Chief Justice Renato Corona would be good for our country. To resolve this, I intend to use political acceptability as the sole criterion to evaluate the projected outcomes of either policy alternative of conviction or acquittal.”
Trillanes, however, said this did not mean the evidence should be completely disregarded, noting that the “strength or weakness of the evidence, and how they are presented could very well affect the political acceptability of either policy alternative.”
“Having said this, it would help if the prosecutors and defense counsels would not to be too technical in their presentations. Ultimately, they would have to win the hearts and minds of the people,” he pointed out.
In determining political acceptability, Trillanes said he intended to use policy research tools – as such as quantitative and qualitative researches and stakeholder analysis – and extensive consultations. He said both methods “could very well filter the noise of the mob and undue media influence from the true will of the people.”
His position runs counter to that of most distinguished lawyers, political analysts and opinion columnists who said that just like in any other “judicial trial” the judgment on Corona’s impeachment case must be determined solely by evidence.
The young lawmaker cited the impeachment trial of former United States President Bill Clinton, who was acquitted by the Senate dominated by his Democratic allies despite overwhelming evidence that he committed perjury and obstruction of justice.
In the Philippines, Trillanes said the fact the power to impeach was given to Congress, and not to the Supreme Court, made the entire process political.
“Moreover, if an impeachment trial were meant to be solely evidence-based, then why didn’t our constitutional framers just give that power to the Supreme Court whose members are supposed to be experienced judges?” Trillanes asked.
The senator also struck down the proposal to conduct a referendum to find out the pulse of the people on the impeachment case against the country’s chief magistrate.
He said the senators, as representatives of the people, were “entrusted with the authority to decide on our own what is in the best interest of the public.”
“Our country is not a direct democracy. We are, in fact, a representative democracy wherein the people indirectly govern their country through elected representatives. It is the representative’s discretion whether to consult his constituents or assume that he is omniscient. More importantly, referendum is not the procedure stated in our Constitution,” he explained.
No comments:
Post a Comment