The impeachment trial: contexts and consequences

The prosecution has concluded its presentation of evidence regarding Article IV (grave threats) of the Articles of Impeachment, and the Presiding Officer has granted its request to subpoena the financial records of the Vice President, her husband, and some of their businesses in connection with Article II (unexplained wealth). Articles I (misuse of confidential funds) and III (procurement bribery) also involve financial matters.

To recall, the Vice President’s legal team sought to discredit the prosecution’s Article IV witnesses who identified the videos of the Vice President saying that she had contracted an assassin, imagined beheading the President, and threatened to exhume his father’s remains and throwing these to the West Philippine Sea, as well as an earlier video of her punching a court sheriff. At the same time, they posited that she was within her rights to act the way she did as she was merely defending others from injustices. Good faith, in other words.

Grave threats is not just an article of impeachment, it is an offense under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Violations of the RPC are mala in se, meaning that the criminal intent of the accused must be proven. Moreover, under the RPC, one may be exempt from criminal liability in certain circumstances for acting in self-defense or defense of relatives and strangers.

Not surprisingly, the Vice President’s lawyers strongly objected to the prosecution’s application for subpoenas for Article II, and will certainly discredit its witnesses and other evidence on financial matters under Articles I to III. After all, like the prosecution, the Vice President’s lawyers are obligated to protect their client’s interest within the bounds of the law and legal ethics. But it may be difficult for them to raise good faith and context as defenses to Articles I to III. In addition, certain laws applicable to the Vice President raise certain legal presumptions that are not in conflict with the constitutional presumption of innocence that she enjoys.

Republic Act 1379 presumes that any property acquired by a public officer or employee during their incumbency that is manifestly out of proportion to their salary and other lawful income is prima facie presumed to be unlawfully acquired. Included within its scope are those properties in the name of the officer’s spouse, children, and other persons. Republic Act 3019 or the anti-graft law contains similar provisions. In contrast to the RPC, violations of Republic Act 3019 are mala prohibita – criminal intent to prove guilt is not required as the mere commission of the prohibited act constitutes the offense.

The facts that support the four Articles of Impeachment can become sources of civil and/or criminal liability. But the Constitution mandates that any such cases to determine the same must be filed in the trial courts and limits the authority of the Impeachment Court only to the question of whether or not the Vice President is fit to remain in office. Furthermore, the Constitution does not require that she be first held civilly or criminally liable by the trial courts before she can be convicted by the Impeachment Court. In fact, Republic Act 9160 and Presidential Decree 1612 which punish money laundering and fencing, respectively, do not require prior conviction for the predicate offenses where the laundered funds or fenced properties came from.

As to who can answer question, the “two-thirds of all Members of the Senate” threshold must be based on nothing more than the total number of actual votes, whether to convict or to acquit, cast by Senator-Judges who had taken their oaths or affirmations and who actually heard and saw the evidence being presented. This position is in accordance with the rationale of impeachment and of the Trial itself, a Constitutional mechanism that gives full life to the principle of accountability of the public officials who occupy the highest positions in our government.

All of the parties in the Trial have significant and interlocking tasks: the prosecution presents evidence to support its case; the Vice President presents evidence to rebut the same; the Impeachment Court decides based on the evidence. We the Filipino people are not mere bystanders. As the ultimate stakeholders in the impeachment process, we are essentially parties as well.

The Trial may have political dimensions but it is not political theater. We should view and understand it what it is: a legal proceedings with legal consequences for all of us.