Question of evidence: How much proof is needed for impeachment trials?

Do the rules of evidence in criminal cases apply to impeachment cases? Or will the lighter burden of proof in simple administrative cases do instead?

 

On Tuesday upon the suggestion of Senator-judge Miriam Defensor Santiago, the Senate decided to hold a caucus to determine the standard of evidence the House prosecution panel must attain to convince the senator-judges trying the case to convict impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona.  

 

The Supreme Court has held in a long line of cases that when it comes to standards of evidence, “proof beyond reasonable doubt is at the highest level, followed by clear and convincing evidence, then by preponderance of evidence, and lastly by substantial evidence, in that order.” Which standard of evidence applies depends on the nature of the case. So, the impeachment case against Corona – are the proceedings criminal, civil or administrative?

 

'Akin to criminal proceedings'

 

On the first day of trial last week, the Presiding Officer of the Senate sitting as the Impeachment Court, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, expressed the opinion that impeachment was “akin to criminal proceedings” and that statement alarmed the House prosecution panel and appeased Corona’s defense team.

 

On Tuesday, lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas, a former SC associate justice, said that since Corona faces the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding public office, which was like a criminal penalty, then the quantum of evidence in the impeachment trial should be proof beyond reasonable doubt like in criminal cases.

 

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is “that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind” which arises from moral certainty and not absolute certainty that the person to be convicted is guilty of the crime.

 

The constitutional provisions on impeachment speak of “conviction” while the Senate Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings speak of a “plea of guilty” or a “plea of not guilty.”

 

But Corona wrote in his Separate Opinion to the Supreme Court’s November 2003 decision dismissing the second impeachment complaint lodged against then Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. that “[b]ecause of its peculiar structure and purpose, impeachment proceedings are neither civil nor criminal.”

 

Corona then quoted Justice Joseph Story of the United States Supreme Court: “The design of impeachment is to remove the impeachable officer from office, not to punish him. An impeachable act need not be criminal. That explains why the Constitution states that the officer removed shall be subject to prosecution in an ordinary criminal case."

 

'Substantial' or 'preponderance'?

 

In response to the statement Cuevas made on Tuesday, House lead prosecutor Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. argued that impeachment is just administrative proceedings to remove an impeachable officer from office and not to punish the official.

 

The standard of evidence in administrative cases is only substantial evidence – the easiest level of evidence to be reached by a prosecutor. Substantial evidence refers to such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

 

Higher than the standard of substantial evidence in administrative proceedings in quasi-judicial bodies is the standard of preponderance of evidence in civil cases in courts.

 

Preponderance of evidence pertains to “probability of the truth.” It is evidence of the side that the court finds more convincing and worthy of belief.

 

The Rules of Court explain how to determine preponderance of evidence.   Section 1 of Rule 133  states that “the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial.” 

 

'Clear and convincing proof,' 'overwhelming preponderance'

 

Also on Tuesday, Senator-judges Santiago and Alan Peter Cayetano called attention to that level of evidentiary standard between civil cases and criminal proceedings. They were referring to “clear and convincing proof” – a more stringent standard than preponderance of evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

 

But both senator-judges also cited with favor Yale Law professor Charles Black Jr. who had published “Impeachment: A Handbook” in 1974. Prof. Black had written about “overwhelming preponderance of the evidence” as a suggested mid-level standard for impeachment cases.

 

Black wrote: “Weighing the factors, I would be sure that one ought not to be satisfied, or anything near satisfied, with the mere ‘preponderance’ of an ordinary civil trial, but perhaps must be satisfied with something less than the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard of the ordinary criminal trial, in the full literal meaning of that standard. ‘Overwhelming preponderance of the evidence’ comes perhaps as close as can to denoting the desired standard.”

 

Whatever the senator-judges decide here in the Philippines, Black’s parting observation perhaps is the most appropriate: “In sum, the Senate has traditionally left the choice of the applicable standard of proof to each individual Senator.” — RSJ/KG, GMA News