First, as regard the nature of impeachment, with all due respect to all those who have stated their different opinions, I have also researched extensively on the subject and I am convinced that it is a political process with a judicial character. It is where the public participates through their representatives in the formulation of a public policy to resolve a policy issue of whether the conviction or acquittal of Chief Justice Renato Corona is in the best interest of the country.
I agree that it is a class of its own; but in my own personal experience, it is akin to one of the most sacred traditions in the Philippine Military Academy which is the Honor Committee Trial. It is where a cadet who is accused of violating the tenets of the Honor Code is tried by a jury of eight members of the Honor Committee, and only a unanimous vote of guilty can convict an accuse. The only difference I can see with this impeachment trial is we don’t have brilliant lawyers like the ones performing before us, and it is the reason why we don’t have technicalities in our attempt to ferret out the truth. Again, then again, that is in a laboratory setting.
Secondly, as to the standard of proof, as a former soldier, Navy officer, I will not even venture into defining and distinguishing between what is proof beyond reasonable doubt and substantial evidence because that is well within the expertise of my more seasoned colleagues. But what I do know and what I will apply in this impeachment trial is the basic sense of justice that God has given by every human being born in this planet.
Lastly, as regards the issue raised by Senator Chiz Escudero as to whether the acts committed by the Chief Justice prior to his appointment in the Supreme Court should be covered in this trial, my position is yes. We should cover them all because I believe part of what we’re trying to find out in this trial is the moral fitness of the Chief Justice to remain in office. Being a justice of the Supreme Court is different from being an elected public official in the sense that elected officials are subjected to periodic election to renew their mandate. So you can have the worst possible moral record but once you are elected into public office, it is presumed that the public already accepted your past and probably they voted for you for other qualities. But the justices of the Supreme Court, whose principal mandate is to administer justice to every citizen of this republic, should possess the highest possible moral standards for public officials.
Read other interesting stories:
Click thumbnails to read related articles.
