MR. MAAMBONG: I will now concern myself with the statement of the Chairman that this impeachment proceeding is very important in the light of the previous happenings in this country. I would like to believe that he was referring to the impeachment case filed against the former President which was covered by Resolution No. 644.
My questions will be directed to this point in order that in the future we will not have difficulties. I will not ask on the procedural aspect. I understand Commissioner Davide will take care of that. I am more concerned about the nature of the impeachment proceedings on which we, members of the Committee on Justice and Good Government that took cognizance of that impeachment proceeding against the former President, really had a lot of difficulty.
We have now in the present proposal the following grounds for impeachment: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, other high crimes, graft and corruption or betrayal of trust. I think we have no problem in the case of treason and bribery because these are all covered by law. I do not think we have also any problem in the case of graft and corruption because it is covered by RA 1319, which was promulgated on August 17, 1960. We will now concern ourselves with the interpretation of the phrases “other high crimes” and “betrayal of trust.” I will start by asking the Committee this question: What is really the thinking of the Committee as far as impeachment proceedings are concerned? Are impeachment proceedings criminal in nature or not? In order to answer this very clearly, I would like to indicate the following: In the case of State v. Lerse, 70 Nebraska 92, which is a United States case, the Supreme Court ruled that the proceeding is likened to a proceeding by indictment in a court of criminal jurisdiction. It is in its nature highly penal and is governed by rules of law applicable to criminal prosecution. On the other hand, I would like to indicate this to the Committee that in the case of official misconduct, we have here statements which I think the Committee should comment on. Official misconduct is supposed to fall into three categories: One, exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office in derogation of the powers of another branch of government; two, behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office; and, three, employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or personal gain.
The provision which we have here says:
“… impeachment and the criminal law serve fundamentally different purposes. Impeachment is the first step in a remedial process. The purpose is not personal punishment. Its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government. The general applicability of the criminal law also makes it inappropriate as the standard. In an impeachment proceeding, a President is called to account for abusing powers which only a President possesses. Impeachable conduct may include the serious failure to discharge the affirmative duties imposed on the President by the Constitution. Unlike a criminal case, the cause for removal may be based on his entire course of conduct in office. It may be a course of conduct more than individual acts that has a tendency to subvert constitutional government.” (Power of Impeachment — Guide to Congress, p. 149)
For purposes of proper elucidation, what is the thinking now of the Committee as far as this impeachment procedure is concerned? Is this a criminal proceeding? If so, we have to use the principle of criminal law.
MR. ROMULO: Yes. Firstly, we agree with the quotation that the Commissioner has just read. Insofar as we are concerned, the procedure is analogous to a criminal trial but it is not a criminal prosecution per se. The goal of an impeachment is merely to remove the fellow from office for the crimes indicated. However, Section 3 (6) of this proposed Article itself — and this is really very close to the provision of the 1935 Constitution — says:
“Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than the removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the Government of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial and punishment according to law.”
In essence, I think that answers the Commissioner’s question. He is then subject to a separate prosecution, whether civilly or criminally, for the acts that he had committed.
MR. MAAMBONG: May I proceed now to two very short questions considering that we have already identified the problem and the answer is that it is not a purely criminal prosecution in terms of procedure. We have here a statement in the book of Simpson which reads:
“A person subject to impeachment by Congress is entitled to due process of law although presently there is little judicial authority. It can be suggested that he is also entitled to his privilege against self-incrimination, right to counsel, right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him, and the right to be confronted with adversary witnesses.” (Treaties on Federal Impeachment, p. 27)
Would this statement be applicable to an impeachment proceeding?
MR. ROMULO: As the provisions now read, I think the Senate, as well as the House, will set up its own rules. I do not know whether or not we have to adhere to that because what the Commissioner has read, strictly speaking, is a criminal proceeding. But the President like any citizen is entitled to the bill of rights, like confrontation of witnesses, notice of the charges and so on. I think those are fundamental and he is entitled to them.
MR. MAAMBONG: Let us go to a bottom-line question then. When the Senate acting as a body will now try the impeachment case, will it conduct the proceeding using principles of criminal procedure?
MR. ROMULO: I do not think, strictly speaking, that it need be criminal procedures. The important thing, I believe, is that the involved party should knew the charges. He must have the opportunity to answer the charges and the proceedings must be, in total, fair and impartial. I do not think we have to go to the minutiae of a criminal proceeding because that is not the intention. This is not a criminal proceeding per se.
MR. MAAMBONG: In the matter of presentation, for example, of evidence, when it comes to treason and bribery, would the rules on criminal procedure be applied, considering that I am now particularizing on the ground which is punishable by the Revised Penal Code, like treason or bribery?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, but we will notice that, strictly speaking, for the crime of treason under the Revised Penal Code, he is answerable for that crime somewhere else. So my conclusion is that obviously, it is in the criminal court where we will apply all the minutiae of evidence and proceedings and all these due processes. But we can be more liberal when it comes to the impeachment proceedings, for instance, in the Senate, because we are after the removal of that fellow, and conviction in that case really amounts to his removal from office. The courts of justice will take care of the criminal and civil aspects.
MR. MAAMBONG: Last point, just to enrich our records. I would like the Committee to comment on this quotation from Philippine Constitution by Former Chief Justice Fernando, wherein he said:
“In the United States Constitution, the term is high crime and misdemeanors. The Philippine Constitution speaks only of high crimes. There is support for the view that while there need not be a showing of the criminal character of the act imputed, it must be of sufficient seriousness as to justify the belief that there was a grave violation of the trust imposed on the official sought to be impeached.” (pp. 460-461)
Would the Committee agree to this statement?
MR. ROMULO: Yes. Let me say that essentially, impeachment is a political act.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes. I will also quote the report of the General Committee on the impeachment of President Quirino, Volume IV, Congressional Records, House of Representatives, 1553:
“High crimes refer to those offenses which, like treason and bribery, are indictable offenses and are of such enormous gravity that they strike at the very life or orderly working of the government.”
Would the Committee agree to this?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, of course, especially if the President is involved.
MR. MAAMBONG: Finally, I will again refer to the committee report on the impeachment of President Quirino on the phrase “culpable violation of the Constitution,” and I quote:
“Culpable violation of the Constitution means willful and intentional violation of the Constitution and not violation committed unintentionally or involuntarily or in good faith or thru an honest mistake of judgment.”
Would the Committee agree?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, we agree with that.
MR. MAAMBONG: And this is really the final quotation which I would like the Committee to comment on. Chief Justice Fernando also said:
“Culpable violation implies deliberate intent, perhaps even a certain degree of perversity for it is not easy to imagine that individuals in the category of these officials would go so far as to defy knowingly what the Constitution commands.”
Could this be an agreeable interpretation to the Committee?
MR ROMULO: Yes, subject to exception, such as the last administrator we had.
MR. MAAMBONG: The Commissioner has been very kind.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam President.
