Impeachable Impeachment

7/31/2019 Impeachable Impeachment

1/21

27 February 2012

Miss CLARE MARIA FRANCESCA CAGURANGAN y DE ALBAN

My dear Clare :

Re: IMPEACHABLE IMPEACHMENT

We write to you who, being the youngest at 4 months

old, are the least likely to overtake us in wisdom and, therefore,

the most in need of guidance. By the time you become literate we

shall have passed the thresholds of our twin missions : one, todelay our death ; two, to use that blessed delay to process our life

in faithful imitation of Christ.

Dear Maria, your Nurse-mother, our daughter, will tell

you that her paternal grandfather, her father and his siblings (her

five tios and two tias) were/are all full-fledged lawyers and that

one of her said tias is qualified to take the Bar Exams and is

running a school for the poor and the underprivilegrd.

Dear Francesca, your mother and College -Instructor

father will tell you that among your close kin are School Teachers;

Deans; School Administrators; Civil, Electrical, Electronics,

Aeronautical and Nautical Engineers; College Professors;

Physicians; Nurses; Farmers; Labour Leaders; Working

Housewives; Priests; Nuns; Dentists; Architects; Bank Clerks;

Judges; Government Officers; Priest -Monk Abbot. Among your

other relatives are much of the same, plus other Lawyers.Commerce, Law, Theology, Philosophy, Sociology, Graduate and

College students amongst your kin .

It has now become our duty to answer your future

doubts: So what had they done in such troubled times of


2/21

challenge to their professional and occupational

disciplines?

And so, this paper.

It is a historical fact that on 16 July 1935 the Holy Pope(PopePius XI), as the Supreme Head of predominantly-Catholic

Philippines, proclaimed the Lady of Guadalupe as the Patroness of

this Christian nation ( on 12 September 1942, Pope Pius XII

proclaimed the Lady of the Immaculate Conception as the Primary

Universal Marian Patroness of the Philippines) .

As we are wont to do we write this paper with a prior

prayer through the Blessed Virgin : Lord, please speak through

us.

It has been said that The voice of the people is the

voice of GOD. The Philippine Constitution is a recording of the

voice of the ratifying Filipino people. The Constitution, the Filipino

concerned, must therefore be the voice of GOD.

It is also a fact that impeachment-trial witnesses take

an oath to uphold the truth, praying : SO HELP ME GOD.

The PREAMBLE of the Philippine Constitution, xx

Imploring the aid of Almighty God xxx commits this country

to faithful observance of the Rule of Law as a policy of

governance.

RULE OF LAW

Thousands have gathered to rally support and

respect for this Rule of Law. Thousands have gathered to rallysupport for the timeliness and fairness of their monetary/title

claims with their employers and landlords.

It is primarily for the first-described thousands that we

(together with our families, friends, relatives and those within our


3/21

demonstrable sphere of professional and occupational influences)

offer this representation of a common sentiment : Ours is a

government of laws NOT of government officials!

We believe that the Constitution is a legal documentand that its provisions ,including that on Impeachment, should

therefore be discussed on legal grounds.

It is respectfully submitted that IMPEACHMENT , as a

constitutionally-set disciplinary measure, is a political issue but

ONLY because it is initiated by POLITICANS. The impeachment

trial is conducted also by politicians but politicians who are

automatically vested with the additional role of judges of a very

special court and not merely as participants in a political/partisanconference. During trial they are viewed as, perforce,

conducting themselves with the cold-neutrality of judicial

magistrates without, however, shedding off their

collective political wisdom as the supreme-setter of

national policies that should, nevertheless, be in

accordance with the Constitution.

There is no Constitutional or statutory provision

that authorizes the suspension of the Bill of Rights ,

especially its DUE PROCESS intendments, upon the

institution of impeachment proceedings, political as

they may seem.

We feel called upon to register our anger at ournagging helplessness watching, aloof, the seeming validation ofnot only fishing expedition but dynamite fishing!

We would have opted to address, officially, this paper

to the Honourable Supreme Court but we are, presently, without

sufficient wherewithal and sustaining boldness ( given medical

requirements) to neutralize the seeming vindictive impulses of

those in power. Instead of focusing adversarial attention to our


4/21

selves, we invite concentration on theories, as written in cadence

with the drums of our conscience.

This paper wishes for the eventual declaration

of the nullity of the on-going impeachment proceedingsand immediate stoppage of the same on grounds of abuse

of discretion amounting to lack, or in excess, of

jurisdiction resulting in damage not only to the

Respondent Chief Justice, and the majesty of the law

symbolized by his office, but to the entire Government,

The Filipino People and, in effect, to the State.

We would like the Chief Justice to somehow know that

we wish for the reader to realize that we mention him in thispersonal letter only as a recognizable, admirable fellowman yet a

personal stranger. And may it be so known.

Admirable, dear Maria, because thrice upon a time he

reminded us of your Lolo Isaac who was fond of confronting us

with a quote: If a man offends you in public with his rudeness ,

punish him with the obvious superiority of your conduct!

We read somewhere that a true gentleman is: one

who never deliberately causes pain and one who fulfils his

obligation in favour of another who is not in a position to demand

fulfilment of that obligation.

It has always been our daily ambition to be

gentlemanly. We wish to be a gentleman of the Filipino -for the

enlightenment of our countrymen.

STATEMENT AND OFFER OF

PERTINENT ASSUMPTIONS


5/21

A. It is the intent of the Constitution to preserve and nurture

the independence of the offices of impeachable officers by

protecting the security of tenure of the incumbents.

B. Security of Tenure is protected by making it difficult to

remove the incumbent impeachable officers who may be

ousted from office only on impeachment for, and

CONVICTION of, culpable violation of the Constitution,

treason, bribery and graft and corruption and OTHER HIGH

CRIMES or betrayal of public trust. (Emphasis ours)

C. Being in the nature of crimes or offenses for any of which the

impeached officer may be convicted, such impeachment

grounds must be strictly construed as having distinct

elements that set them apart from one another.

D. It is the clear intent of the Constitution to give

extraordinary protection to Supreme Court Justicesconsistent with the extraordinary nature of their

function and mission as supreme implementer of the Rule

of Law and also consistent with the assurance of their fealty

assumable from their entry-credentials ofmoral and

academic excellence ; as in fact it is a measure of this

assurance that while a Justice may automatically qualify to

be President or President of the Senate the latter two may

not necessarily qualify to become a Judge, much less aJustice.

E. It is the intent of the Constitution to protect and nurture the

separation, and balance, of power among the three (3) great


6/21

Departments by maintaining their independence from each

other

STATEMENT OF THE PREDICATE GROUNDS

CONSTITUTING GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION

AMOUNTING TO LACK, OR IN EXCESS, OF

JURISDICTION

A. THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT COURT IS CONDUCTING TRIAL

UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF RULES ISSUED NOT IN

COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE

CONSTITUTION.

B. THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT COURT IS CONDUCTING TRIAL

ON AN IMPEACHMENT GROUND (BETRAYAL OF PUBLICTRUST) NOT APPLICABLE TO THE RESPONDENT CHIEF

JUSTICE.

C. THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL ABETS COLLUSION BETWEEN

THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT AND THE HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES IN THEIR VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE

OF SEPARATION-OF-POWERS AMONG THE THREE GREATDEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENT.


7/21

DISCUSSIONS/ARGUMENTS

Re: Ground A

The senate impeachment court is conducting

trial under the authority and guidance of rulesissued not in compliance with the requirements of

the Constitution:

Section 3, Article XI of the Philippine Constitution

Provides:

x x x

(8) The congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachmentto effectively carry out the purpose of this section.

It is true that the Senate issued Resolution No 890 for it to

embody Senate rules of impeachment. It is also true that the

House of Representatives issued its own impeachment rules.

Still, Article VI of the said Constitution provides:

Section I. the legislative power shall be vested in the

Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a senate and ahouse of representatives xx.

It seems clear that when the Constitution uses the words

the congress shall promulgate its rules xx (underscoring

ours) the Constitution refers to congress as a whole and not to its

separate or individual components especially because of the word

its which does not refer to either of the houses only.

It is humbly submitted that the separate resolutions of bothhouses of Congress are not the its rules Congress itself should

promulgate - the Senate is only one of two components of

Congress, the House of Representatives being the other half. The

separate acts of these distinct components are not the act of

Congress, one of the three Great Departments. This disparity is


8/21

clear from the fact that the two resolutions do not contain on their

faces an intent to seek mutual concurrences.

It is humbly submitted that a mere joint- resolution of

concurrence by both houses, covering their respectiveresolutions, indicates post-fact adoptions that could only mean

accommodative assent to separate and, therefore, exclusionary

deliberations that do not reflect a truly unified sense of Congress

rule-making as one. For instance as presently worded the

resolutions seem to make it a mere ministerial duty on the part of

the Senate to accept for trial any impeachment complaint from

the Lower House whether or not such complaint has substantial

infirmities.

A strict interpretation of the constitutional provisions on

impeachment is in order since the Respondent is entitled to a

strict interpretation in his favour, impeachment trial being closely

akin to substantive criminal law and criminal proceedings, given

the following:

- The clear intent of the Constitution to make

removal of a justice difficult in order to preserve

security of tenure.

For its guaranty if independence.

- Use by the Constitution of the words

impeachment for and CONVICTION of, xxx

(emphasis ours).

- Use by the Constitution of specific crimes and

other high crimes in four (4) of the six

(6) grounds for impeachment.


9/21

There seems to be agreement on the opinion that an

impeachment trial is not clearly criminal, civil or

administrative; sui generis, they say. If so, dearFrancesca, then with more reason that Congress should

have resolved for its rules to have a distinctive

impeachment character with distinct procedural and

evidential requirements and parameters.

Whether or not the Senate rules guarantee effective

implementation of the Constitutional provisions on

impeachment suggests need for judicial clarification since

such rules do not provide answers to/on issues relating to

probable cause, essential elements of the impeachable

offenses and quantum of evidence sufficient to support

conviction. Such inherent inadequacies impact negatively on

any respondents right to due process.

What seem so glaringly unfair are: the proscription against

objection, by the defence, to the active interrogation ofsenator-judges no matter how biasedly monopolizing or

monopolizingly-bias such questionings may be; the

indiscriminate offer of proof for undetermined elements of

any impeachment ground (and therefore the whimsical

appreciation of the existence of such elements).

Re: Ground B

The Senate Impeachment

Court is conducting trial on an Impeachment

Ground (Betrayal of Public Trust) not applicable

to the Respondent Chief Justice.


10/21

It is respectfully submitted that for any of the grounds for

impeachment to be applicable to any impeachable officer suchground should have a distinct, independent, legal

existence determined by the presence of unique elements

that set such grounds apart from one another.

It seems the theory of the impeachment prosecutors that the

honourable Chief Justice committed Betrayal of Public Trust,

supposedly implied from the constitutional /statutory provisions

that Public Office is a Public Trust, when he supposedly made

inaccurate entries in his Statements of Assets Liabilities And

Networth (SALN).

It should be noted well that the Respondent Chief Justice

became an impeachable officer not by direct action of the

people but by recommendation of the Judicial and Bar Council

and the adoption by the President of such recommendation with

the appointment of respondent as Chief Justice

We submit that it is only to elected impeachable

officers, the Presidentand vice-President, that the ground

betrayal of public trust applies because it is only to them that a

unique element (EXPRESS TRUST) may be appreciable and it is

only on/to them that the public (the electorate) reposes/gives, by

voting, their trust directly, openly and publicly.

If EXPRESS TRUST is considered in relation to the Chief

Justice we would be assuming as valid an unreasonable theory-that at the time the public voted for the appointing power (the

President) the voters knew who the President would appoint as

Chief Justice. Speculation as regards the Members of the Judicial

and Bar Council would fetch a worse assumption.


11/21

The table hereunder shows that if applied to appointed

impeachable officers the ground of betrayal of public trust

would have no appreciable unique essential elements and

,therefore, may not be a distinct ground since it has no distinct

element that sets it apart from the other four (4) grounds:

Grounds forImpeachment

Common EssentialElement

Unique EssentialElements

i. CulpableViolation oftheconstitution

i. Implied Trust(Publicoffice is apublic

Trust)

i. Elements/actsconstitutingviolations ofprovisions ofthe

Constitutioncommitted intheperformanceof dutiesunder theConstitution

ii. Treason ii. same- i. Elements ofTreasonunder the

Revised PenalCode, asamended(RPC))

ii. Bribery iii. Same- iii. Elements ofBribery underthe RPC, asamended.

iv.Graft and

Corruption

v. same- iv. Elements of acts

of Graft andCorruptionunder RA3019.

v. Other HighCrimes

v.-same- v. Elements of crimes under theRPC, as amended


12/21

and Special PenalLaws as grave as

Treason, Bribery andGraft and Corruption.

vi.Betrayal ofPublic Trust

vi.-same- vi. Expresstrust(present onlyas regardselectiveimpeachableofficers)

It is a further demonstration of the soundness of this

argument (that betrayal of public trust does not apply to the

respondent Chief Justice) that even if the respondent admitted

having falsified his SALNs his exposure would only be for liability

for the crime of PERJURY which is not a ground for impeachment

even if violation of implied trust is automatically appreciated as

an element of PERJURY.

To assert that the Chief Justice, an appointed impeachable

officer, may be charged for Betrayal of Public Trust on the basis

of violation of implied trust, and therefore of its implied

betrayal is to assume that he may be charged for such ground

on the basis of any and all predicate crime/crimes (Malicious

Mischief, Unjust vexation, Aiding Suicide, Less Serious Physical

Injuries, Traffic Violations, Alarms and Scandal, etc). Absurdly, it

is humbly submitted, in derogation of the protective intent of theConstitution. It is respectively submitted that IMPLIED

BETRAYAL OF IMPLIED PUBLIC TRUST could not have been

intended by the Constitution to have parity of evil with the

adjectival other HIGH crimes, especially as regards a

Justice of the Supreme Court.


13/21

In other words if Betrayal of Public Trust is used as

an impeachment ground without any unique element

other than implied trust than the other impeachment

grounds ( treason, bribery, etc) are totally useless as a

total superfluity. The Constitution, the most sacred law ofthe land , was certainly not meant to be a receptacle of

verbal wastage and sanctimonious absurdity.

Still, even if we assume ad arguendo only, that IMPLIED

TRUST alone is a sufficient unique ground then such uniqueness

should refer to the CJs duties peculiar to his office. But could the

public be said to have knowledge of what they entrust to the CJ

when it seems clear that the average Filipino has absolutely very

little or no knowledge of the CJs duties? How can the ordinary

Filipino be betrayed by somebody whose official existence and

whose duties are hardly known to the former. It seems logical to

assume that for betrayal to assume the level of evil of a high

crime the same must be one that is consciously and commonly

perceived by the public in relation to a trust the nature of which is

known to the public as peculiarly - pertaining to the impeachable

officers office. The publics ignorance or lack of consciousness

of respondents supposed betrayal is demonstrated by the fact

that prior to the impeachment complaint that was filed by the

Lower House (and not by the people) there was no public outcry

or noises of discontent by the people against respondents

supposed BETRAYAL. What is clear is that marchers who feel

betrayed are party-litigants in a civil case.

The Prosecutors may invoke their representation of the people

but the former are voted into office for the purpose oflegislation not for prosecution, and this assumed

dysfunction is shown especially so in this case where

the complaint was not initiated by public clamour, nor by a

private person under oath, but by the Prosecutors

themselves who, in fact, are still gathering evidence


14/21

hoping to utilize the Senate as a watercraft for their

fishing expedition! What is happening is that the

Prosecutors are trying to use the Senatecourt to gather

evidence to yet convince the people that they were

betrayed in connection with a trust they hardly know of!This has the sequential logicality of putting the socks

after the shoes.!!

It seems ridiculously unfair to make much of the CJs

supposedly-perjured SALNs when the preparation of the same is

not a duty peculiar or unique to a Justice; the ordinary

government personnel prepares and submits his SALN too, and

such is a duty set by statute-based revisable regulatory

Implementing Rules and Regulations not by the Constitution.

Prosecutors reference to ill-gotten wealth, represented by

supposed bank deposits not reported in respondents SALNs, has

no relevance to Betrayal of Public Trust" simply because

possession of unexplained, and therefore presumably ill-gotten,

wealth is neither a crime nor a publicly-presumed offense.

There is no law that requires any person to explain

his possession of wealth, no matter how impressively-

great it can be, unless he is brought to court in a forfeiture trial

under RA 1379 which is properly initiated by the Office of the

Solicitor General. The forfeiture, assuming it is finally ordered, is

not predicated on the commission of a crime/ crimes as the

source of wealth but on mere failure to explain legitimacy of the

source of such wealth. A respondent, who happens to be an

impeachable officer may, driven by personal reasons,

refuse to explain yet, nevertheless, his waiver ofpossessory right, resulting from such refusal to shoulder

the burden of explaining, cannot/ may not legally be a

predicate ground for his impeachment, such failure to

explain not being a crime or a scandalous offense(Please

note that jurisprudence says that impeachable officers


15/21

may not be investigated for any crime during their

incumbency).

It should now be clear that for presumption of ill-gotten

wealth to be a predicate for an impeachable ground (assuming,ad arguendo only, that betrayal of public trust is applicable in this

case) such presumption should exist at the time of the Complaint

which is legally impossible because such presumption may be

ruled as existing only in forfeiture proceedings which

were not, and may not at this stage be, conducted.

In fact the non-disclosure of bank deposits, dollar or peso,

could be explained by accommodative bank-transactions where

bank accounts are used by depositors (who really own the money

deposits) other than the registered owner of such accounts. It

then goes without saying that the account-owner may not

disclose such funds as his own because in reality they are not.

Re Ground C

Violation of the Principle of Separation of Powers.

That the Executive Department and the House of

Representatives are passionately working together for the ouster

of the Chief Justice seems clear from the following:

1. In seeming total disregard of the ordinary Filipinos

sensitivity to public display of official courtesy the President,

delivering his Inaugural Address, totally ignored thepresence of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In effect

the President sent a signal that his policy of governance

guarantees less-than-awe and selective respect for the office

of the Chief Justice (CJ). All televised.


16/21

2. Speaking before high-ranked participants and guests in an

official summit on law and justice, the President expressed

his implied objections to the legitimacy of the CJs tenureand to alleged decisional inconsistencies of the Supreme

Court. He referred to a midnight appointment as though it

were not an issue already decided with finality by the

Highest Court. All televised.

3. This impeachment case appears to have emerged not as the

culmination of a long-developing, certainly not spontaneous,

clamour of the people for truth and justice but rather as a

studied show of party-support for the antecedent

confrontational acts of the President.

4. The President publicly explained that the ouster of a

Representative from the chairmanship of a HouseCommittee was a party-decision. The ousted Representative

happened to have refused to sign the impeachment

complaint. Televised.

5. The House of Representatives used as a basis for its

impeachment complaint the TRO issued by the Supreme

Court upholding Congressional Representative GMAs rightto travel (guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution and

Art.13 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human

Rights); and the House did so at a time when the Supreme

Court was confronted with the alleged contumacy of the

Justice Secretarys conduct in defiance of the TRO and with


17/21

the Highest Courts duty to defend its independence. This

created in the mind of this writer and others that there are

endeavours to project advance explanations for future

failures prominent of which is the looming probable

failure to explain contempt of Court by the ExecutiveDepartment. Pertinent events televised.

6. A Malacaan spokesperson had risen to explain a personal

real-estate wealth of the Lead Prosecutor who had verbally

demonized the Respondent CJ whom the former then tried to

exorcize with his opening speech, invoking the Almighty,

even before the merest mote of evidence had been

submitted against the respondent CJ; in total, flagrant

disregard of the Constitution and its guaranty of

presumption of innocence in favour of the CJ. There seems

here to be no passion for truth; except an obsession for the

removal of the CJ from office, with the House probably so

confident of their trivialization of the CJ s rights to due

process that, self-fortified by one-track enthusiasm, they

assume that the event will happen despite the cavalier OJT

(On-the-job -Training) efforts of the Prosecutors. Televised.

7. Malacaan has used the Media to explain the shortcomings

of the Prosecutors. In fact last 15 February newspapers

reported that Malacaan asserted the authenticity of

Prosecution-presented bank records supposedly testified to

as illegally-disclosed and possibly bogus. And yet the issue

was/is still being debated upon in the Impeachment Court!!!


18/21

8. The BIR Commissioner publicly announced her intention to

conduct probe on the financial status of the CJ even in the

pendency of the impeachment trial, thus

impliedly/effectively warning all and assuring the

Prosecutors that she intended to gather damaging evidenceagainst the CJ. The Commissioner did not express her intent

to investigate other impeachable officers -a seeming

indifference to the equal-protection clause of the

Constitution. The BIR is under the Executive Department.

Televised

9. And again the President, on February 16, using power-pointpresentation (Guilty As I See It), argued, before an

audience of students and government officers, his conclusion

that the respondent CJ deserved to be removed from office

on the basis of evidence (supposed bank records showing

deposits of amounts much larger than those reflected in the

CJs SALNs) submitted in the impeachment trial , all even

before such pieces of evidence were/are still to be declared

admissible . kailangan pa bang tanungin kung impeachableoffense itong ginawa niya? .Televised. And yet the

issue is still being debated upon in the Impeachment Court.

10. And, recently, newspapers report the Presidents

supposedly-declared sense that a ruled-out hearsay evidence

from the Secretary of Justice should nevertheless be admitted as

competent evidence.

We may not appreciate the supposed righteousness of themuch-invoked crusade against graft and corruption to justify

such seeming lack of respect for the rule of law (violation of

the principle of separation of powers by openly siding with the

prosecutors; public declaration of guilty-verdict against the

respondent despite the Constitutional presumption of the


19/21

respondents innocence ) especially because such crusade is

not exclusive and certainly not upon the inducements of

novelty, the same having been officialised as early as 17

August 1960 upon the approval of the Anti-Graft Law ( from a

Bill reportedly authored by Mr DIOSDADO P. MACAPAGAL,former President of the Republic).

In the pulpits; in the columns of the press; in the

classrooms: priests, pastors, mentors and pundits warn us

that for an act to be truly good it should have two

ingredients :(1)It is the right thing to do and (2) it is the right

way to do it. A drive against corruption is the right thing todo. But are we doing it the right way. It has been asked :

May we right a wrong by another wrong.

My dear Maria,

In the hierarchy of social evils, what can be more

contagiously-corrupting, especially to the young, than

a national leaders public display of seeming lack of

respect for the Constitution and, therefore, of therule of law.

Lack of respect , it is humbly and respectfully

submitted, is the common fundamental element of

all crimes. We repeat : lack of respect is the common

basic element of all crimes!

STATEMENT OF ADHERENCE

TO THE RULE OF LAW


20/21

We believe that impeachment trials are not simply

political; they may be political in their initiation but judicial in

terms of their proper disposition.

We may not be moved by the grandeur or pettiness ofthe posturing of any involved in this impeachment trial. We

believe that no one is above the law. But there is

something higher than that law -its judicious

interpretation by the Constitutionally-authorized.

We mark with favour a Senator who suggested

that the respondent Chief Justice should be entitled

to the presumption of innocence as well as to the

presumption ofhonour. The irony is : did thereminder have to come from a soldier among

honourable ,learned, leading women and men?! If we

imagine that it was a reaching-out between former

friends or foes, such was indeed a beautifully-

nagging paradox!

It is in this context that we hereby offer our total reliance on

the redeeming, exclusionary innate goodness of man. History willjudge the Senators judgment not on the basis of any clever

reliance on the convenient political wisdom of garnering more

votes but on their capacity to set progressive national policies,

for bettering times, and to enlighten the Filipino and protect him

from himself. The Rule of Law must prevail ! SO HELP US GOD.

Dear Francesca,

We respectfully submit this, all for AlmightyGodAlways!!

Lovingly yours in imitation of Christ ,

Lolo bob

Sampaloc, Metro Manila for Cagayan Valley


21/21

Impeachable Impeachment

Documents

Transcript of Impeachable Impeachment