Press Release
March 12, 2012

SENATE MINORITY LEADER ALAN PETER S. CAYETANO
Manifestation on Day 27 on the impeachment trial of CJ Corona
Re: Validity of the Impeachment Complaint

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano raised the following points after the Defense questioned the validity of the Impeachment Complaint despite a prior ruling made by the Impeachment Court upholding the integrity and validity of the complaint:

1) Constitution allows that an impeachment complaint be transmitted automatically to the Senate if 1/3 of the House of representatives signed.

- If we look at Article 11: Accountability of Public Officials - Section 3, Paragraph 4:

"In the case of a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by at least one-third of the members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment and trial by the Senate forthwith proceed."

It is very clear here that when you have one-third of all the members signing the verified complaint or resolution, it shall automatically constitute an article of impeachment.

If one-third signed and the complaint has reached the Senate, our work now is not to determine probable cause. Our work starts with determine if there are impeachable grounds under the Constitution.

- Cayetano: "I support the decision of the court and I don't think there's any other logical interpretation of Paragraph 4 which I read. If we're going to interpret that it would require the House to have a hearing then it would be the same as the other paragraphs. "

- Cayetano says while he's sympathetic, tackling probable cause of impeachment complaint "will, in effect, amend constitution"

2) The Constitutional provision of allowing the automatic transmittal of an impeachment complaint to the Senate if 1/3 of the House signed it is a way to balance accountability and transparency in government, yet at the same time provide due process to the impeachable official.

- It's not that easy to get one-third. And we cannot assume that the House of Representatives will not act in good faith. If you make it almost impossible then you give the Supreme Court justices immunity.

- Cayetano said:

"Ang Presidente po anim na taon lang siya immune sa suit. Ang Supreme Court justice kapag 55 years old ka na-appoint... hindi ka pwede magfile ng disbarment or criminal case, kailangan impeachment muna bago mo sila kasuhan..."

"So kung pahihirapan naman natin ng husto, paano mo sila i-i-impeach? Maghihintay tayo ng hanggang 70 years old na sila para magretire at doon mo lang pwede kasuhan, wala na pong remedy ang taong bayan. Ang mamamayan wala nang pupuntahan."

ACTUAL MANIFESTATION

ASC: Your Honor, naririnig ko po yung terms na "due process" and yung very layman's terms na "makinig muna bago maghusga", tapos yung "determination of probable cause".

Tama po ba na hinihingi ninyo sa amin na magkaroon ng preliminary hearing para i-determine precisely kung nagkaroon ang House of Representatives ng determination of probable cause?

Cuevas replies that their request for a preliminary hearing was denied.

ASC: So you now you're asking us...?

Cuevas asks the Senate to allow the defense to present the evidence that they were not able to present before because their request for a preliminary hearing was denied.

ASC: Sir, what you want to prove is that walang determination ang House ng probable cause ergo it's a violation of the due process of your client, the impeachable honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

In a nutshell po, go ahead (you may now answer).

Cuevas explains that not only was the denial of a preliminary trial a violation of the due process rights of the accused but also of the constitutional mandate on the part of our judicial department that the accused should be entitled to due process.

ASC: The reason I asked this question is to say that I am sympathetic in general. I always use the example that we use in law school na "Ang Diyos nga mismo ay nakita niya na kinain ni Eba at Adan yung mansanas pero hindi niya agad hinusgahan at tinanong niya muna kung anong ginagawa nila at bakit sila nagtatago." So before he condemned, he asked them a question.

Having said that, your Honor, if we look at Article 11: Accountability of Public Officials - Section 3, Paragraph 4: "In the case of a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by at least one-third of the members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment and trial by the Senate forthwith proceed."

My problem, your Honor, with being sympathetic with your advice is this: If we granted you a preliminary hearing or if we allow you to present evidence now, saan ito pupunta? Pag nagruling po kami na walang probable cause or walang determination of probable cause or hindi kaya dininig ng House of Representatives, we will be in effect amending the Constitution.

We will now be saying that mali ang Paragraph 4 ng Section 3 ng Article 11 because we will be basically telling the House that kailangan nila maghearing muna. But it is very clear here that when you have one-third of all the members signing the verified complaint or resolution, it shall automatically constitute an article of impeachment.

So unlike a case in the fiscal's office na kailangan ng piskal na i-inform pareho at makinig sa parehong side and then determine whether or not merong probable cause. In the case of Paragraph 4, pag binasa ng Congressman at pinirmahan at umabot sila ng one-third yun na po ang determination of probable cause.

Specifically I am talking about Paragraph 4 because I believe that this is the mode that the impeachment reached the Senate. So your honor, pag binasa ng Congressman 'to at pinirmahan at umabot ng one-third diretso na to sa Senado. Kapag hindi umabot ng one-third, nagkakaroon ng proseso sa House of Representatives under Paragraph 1,2, and 3.

During the impeachment of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, then-Congressman Senator TG Guingona, myself, Congressman Joel Villanueva, then-Congressman Senator Chiz Escudero , eto po ang tanong namin sa mga ka-debate namin on the opposite side. Sabi namin sa kanila na kahit napakalakas ng finile namin na resolution, kahit klarong klarong may probable cause pagka-hindi kami naka-one third, ibig sabihin ang finding niyo walang probable cause.

On the other hand, even if it is a piece of paper na walang laman, if one-third signs it, it will go to the Senate at meron nang probable cause. And there was always a unanimity there.

If one-third nakapirma at pumunta na sa amin yun, ang trabaho namin is hindi i-determine yung probable cause. Ang iddetermine namin ay kung mayroon bang impeachable grounds: "May grounds ba for impeachment under the Constitution?" Then number two, proceed with trial, para malaman kung guilty yung tao.

Yun po ang problema ko. Assuming I ask for a reconsideration because I voted with the majority party and I think the ruling of the presiding officer and of the impeachment court is correct. But assuming for the sake of argument, sabihin natin na dapat bigyan ng hearing at dapat payagan ang defense na magpakita ng ebidensiya na hindi dumaan sa due process or nagshow ng probable cause (ang complaint).

Pero ang Constitution na po ang nagsabi na pagka one-third ay nakapirma, due process na yun. Dito na siya magpaliwanag. Ika nga ng mga pulis, "Boss sa prisinto ka nalang magpaliwanag." Pero dito ang sinabi, "Boss, sa impeachment trial ka na magpaliwanag at wag na sa Committee on Justice".

Your honor, my question is, and answer the way you would like to sir, is are you saying that Paragraph 4 is unconstitutional or this paragraph is in fact violative of other parts of the Constitution? Kasi if we return this to the House of Representatives, yung effect po is that we'll be nullifying this mode of elevating an impeachment case to the impeachment court.

Cuevas states that the opinion of one-third of Congress signing an impeachment complaint is not proof of probable cause is not of the opinion of the Chief Justice alone but rather the Supreme Court as a whole.

ASC: My question is can the Supreme Court amend the Constitution?

Cuevas states that it is not an amendment but rather an interpretation.

ASC: But how can you interpret it any other way? Ang nakalagay po dito is, "In case of a verified complaint or the resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all members, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment." Hindi po nakalagay dito that "the House shall now have a hearing to determine probable cause."

Cuevas counters that it does not also the necessity of determining probable cause..

ASC: Nakalagay po. "And trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed."

Cuevas replies that in this jurisprudence of the SC, it is stated that it can be asserted before the Lower House and if it is denied you can go to the impeachment court, even if the impeachment case is already filed. The impeachment court can then act on it whether to grant it or deny it. So it is a reconciliation.

ASC: Your Honor, I will not answer that statement about the Supreme Court because I think in our ruling we mentioned about the ruling of Chief Justice Davide in the Estrada trial. But I think I will stop there and thank you for answering those questions.

I'd just like to put that on record that I support the decision of the court and I don't think there's any other logical interpretation of Paragraph 4 which I read. If we're going to interpret that it would require the House to have a hearing then it would be the same as the other paragraphs.

But your Honor, because of due process and we want to hear both sides, you're not arguing with me, I'm not arguing with you and I'd like to put that on record.

Cuevas counters that if you follow that dictum then there can never be a time when an impeachable officer will be immune from impeachment proceedings when it can be filed by any disgruntled individual because all they have to do is gather one-third and there is no need for investigation to determine probable cause.

ASC: Just for the information of the court, your Honor, that is precisely in the records of the debate of the Constitutional commission. Yun po precisely ang debate nila. If you ask for a majority of Congress to impeach a public official, it will be very difficult to impeach a public official. Pag isa, lima, sampu naman, it will be very easy.

Ano yung compromise? When one-third affixes their signature on a verified complaint or resolution then automatic na punta na po ito sa impeachment court. At tinanong nga doon, "But will that be subject to abuse, etc?"

It's not that easy to get one-third. And we cannot assume that the House of Representatives will not act in good faith. So, your Honor, that's the balancing of the accountability and transparency here. If you make it almost impossible then you give the Supreme Court justices immunity.

Ang Presidente po anim na taon lang siya immune sa suit. Ang Supreme Court justice kapag 55 years old ka na-appoint, ang sabi po nila sa mga Supreme Court cases, hindi ka pwede magfile ng disbarment or criminal case, kailangan impeachment muna bago mo sila kasuhan. Dahil kung hindi indirectly tinatanggal mo sila.

So kung pahihirapan naman natin ng husto, paano mo sila i-i-impeach? Maghihintay tayo ng hanggang 70 years old na sila para magretire at doon mo lang pwede kasuhan, wala na pong remedy ang taong bayan. Ang mamamayan wala nang pupuntahan.

Your Honor, I was just responding to your thesis that it is so easy. But I've been a Congressman for 3 terms and I've been monitoring Congress, I think ilan pa lang po ang naiimpeach in this mode.

Thank you Mr. President. Thank you for this time.

News Latest News Feed