The rules of court and criminal procedure on evidence, whether liberally or strictly construed, has no place in an impeachment proceeding full stop, no ifs or buts. What is supposed to be suppletory, has become the main rule, to the detriment of the peoples’ search for truth.  CJ Corona should allow the prosecution to present its case with minimum interruptions, and after that, the defense should also be allowed to present their case with minimum interruptions and let the senators and the people decide.  That is the better rule so the impeachment proceedings can be concluded at the earliest possible time.

Bakit pag nagtatanggal ang Supreme Court ng judge, administrative proceedings lang ang allowed, bakit pag chief justice ang tinatanggal biglang rules of court ang gamit?  Pag sila na mga justices ang aakusa ng mga court personnel, o abugado lax ang rules of evidence and even includes hearsay, pero kung sila na, na mga justices ang may kaso, gusto nila strict rules of court pa. See Celis vs. Marquez (138 SCRA 256), Bacsin vs Wahiman citing Dadubo vs Civil Service Commissioner and many other cases where the SC used administrative rules to resolve administrative complaints asking for the removal of a public official or employee.

The obsession of the defense panel on the rules of court, raising technical objections, that not only delays the proceedings but makes the ongoing impeachment impossible to understand, is now getting out of hand.  Hindi na malalaman ng mga nanood at naghuhusga kung ano ang kwento at katotohanan dahil sa walang katapusang objections ng defense. This obsession of the defense lawyers with the rules of court is meant to allow CJ Corona to confuse the issue and provided in the rules of court does not accord due process.  In fact, there were many times when these same rules of court have also led to injustice by allowing accused corrupt officials to go free.  Gloria Arroyo has cleverly abused legal processes during her reign to escape accountability.

There is no provision in the law or the Constitution that requires the rules of court to be used impeachment proceedings.  Ang resulta ng ganitong pagkahibang sa rules of court ay malaking disbentahe para sa mamamayan at sa prosekusyon at malaking panalo para sa mga corrupt na opisyales na ini-impeach.  The implication of using the rules of court in this impeachment proceedings is that the impeached official will most likely escape accountability and get acquitted.

There are three reasons why the rules of court cannot be the main rule in impeachment proceedings:

1.      The Senate President may not be a lawyer.  It is fortunate that the current Senate has a learned legal mind in the person of the Senate President. However, if the senate president who acts as the presiding officer is not a lawyer, it is almost impossible for him to speedily or even judiciously dispose of the objections.  For example and without asking for it, if Senator Enrile becomes unavailable or sick, it will be difficult for the non lawyer majority leader or pro tempore to preside and rule on the objections of the defense.  Judges in courts are obligated to know the rules of court but senators are not.

2.      The prosecution panel need not be lawyers all the time should lawyer members of the House refuse to support the impeachment against a Supreme Court Justice.  One thing sure, congressmen and senators are prohibited by the Constitution from practicing law in courts therefore while the defense counsel may refer to the rules of court at least once a day it would be lucky if the senators and the congressmen refer to the rules of court once a year.  Why would the rules of lawyers be used when both the senators and the congressmen may not even be lawyers?  This is the arena of the lawyers of the defense to the glee of the impeached public official and the dismay of the people.

In this situation, when both the non-lawyer Senate president and the prosecution panel are working in an arena governed by the rules of lawyers, it is a foregone conclusion that the defense will have a field day acquitting itself.

The impeachment is not a judicial proceeding.  Everyone says it is mainly political in nature. Why the rules of court should even be used in proceedings which everybody recognizes as not a judicial proceeding is completely unexplained.  To the dismay of the people, and possibly the impeachment senators and definitely the prosecution, who only want to know the truth, the defense continue to hide the truth through the use of the rules of court, no different from their tactic in the Estrada impeachment complaint.

3.      Using the rules of court will actually not be the basis of the decision and will be useless in the end, anyway.  Even if the prosecution managed to hurdle all technical objections and present evidence sufficient to convict the accused but one senator decides to acquit CJ Corona, can we appeal to the Supreme Court in this case on the ground that said decision violated the rules of court and jurisprudence? No. So after all the wrangling on what the rules of court say, after debating on the quantum of evidence required in the end, the decision may not even based on the rules of court or jurisprudence, but on the basis of conscience or the senator’s perception of what is for the common good and the decision cannot even be appealed on the basis of the rules of court.

So why obsess about it then in the first place? Except if you want to derail it or hide the truth.

This misuse of the rules will also put the senators in a bad light. If the prosecution asks a question on the witness, the rules of court apply.  So the defense peppers the prosecution with questions and other delaying tactics to confuse the issue. When the resulting confusion forces a senator to ask a question, only the basic rule of fairness and due process apply (and rightly so), making it easier for the senator to ferret the truth from the witness. This will only lead to the false impression that the senators are favoring either the defense or the prosecution, which is not necessarily true.

I propose that both parties must be allowed to present their case with minimum interruption from both sides.  “The prosecution should be allowed to present its evidence with minimal interruptions. Hindi ito kasong criminal, at walang makukulong dito. Ito ay walang kinaiba sa mga administratibong kaso para tanggalin sa posisyon ang isang municipal clerk o empleyado.  Hayaan ang prosekusyon na ilahad ang kanilang mga alegasyon at sabi naman ni CJ Corona na mahina ang mga ito.  The defense can present their case immediately after the prosecution’s presentation and they should also be allowed to present their side of the story with the same minimum interruption.   And let the impeachment senators and the people decide. Ito ang better rule, and in fact the only rule.

The chief justice is being made to account, not to the senate, not to the congressmen, but to the people.  It must be done in a way understandable to the people and the senators and not merely to the lawyers.

Representative Neri Javier Colmenares
Bayan Muna Party-list
Member, House Prosecution Team for the Impeachment Trial of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona