The Corona conviction: 'Chance to rebuild the judiciary'

The conviction and ouster of Chief Justice Renato Corona were historic, the first time an impeachment trial was settled by a Senate vote. But what does it herald for the future? It represents an opportunity to improve governance, according to several veteran observers of the high court.

 

"This gives us a chance to rebuild the judiciary. The next Chief Justice should be less political and should not be subservient to the appointing power. We have a lot of lessons to learn from Corona," Harry Roque, a human rights lawyer and a professor at the UP College of Law, told GMA News Online in a telephone interview. 

 

One of the most important consequences of the trial, according to Roque, is that there is now a precedent that non-declaration of assets in the statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth is a culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust. 

 

Roque also said that Corona's impeachment may set the ground for seeking accountability from former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, whose administration was wracked with allegations of corruption. 

 

"Let's not forget that this was to ensure that Arroyo should be tried fairly and squarely. Corona's removal is hence only the first step," said Roque. 

 

Atty. Rowena Guanzon, director of the Institute of Judicial Administration at the UP Law Center, thinks that this impeachment trial has set a new moral standard for the next Chief Justice.

 

"The Senate has raised the bar. The challenge for President Aquino is to choose a man or woman who is not only qualified but who is, above all, beyond reproach," Guanzon elaborated in an email message to GMA News Online.

 

"The impeachment trial showed that the Philippine Senate has the integrity to decide on the basis of evidence and the people's trust. It is also a good argument for reform. The next Chief Justices should be confirmed by the Senate. Even if this is not in the Constitution, the president would do well to trust the Senate in removing one Chief Justice and replacing him with another," she added.

 

What's next for Corona? 

 

Prof. Rowena Daroy-Morales of the UP College of Law, explained that aside from removal and disqualification from office, Corona's conviction also includes the loss of his retirement benefits, and even possible disbarment as well as criminal, civil, and administrative charges in the regular courts.

 

However, future litigation may have an unexpected twist if Corona’s defense team makes good on its statements that they may seek intervention from the Supreme Court in case of a conviction.

 

When asked by reporters after the trial if he found any instances of grave abuse of discretion by the impeachment court, lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas said there were many.

 

In the closing arguments Monday, Cuevas said that the impeachment complaint was filed in violation of Corona's due process rights, as in a blitzkrieg manner and thus should have been declared null and void.

 

Cuevas, however, said he still has to consult with Corona before taking any action.

 

Possible Supreme Court intervention

 

Pacifico Agabin, a noted constitutionalist and former dean of the UP College of Law, said that Corona does have the option of seeking remedy from the Supreme Court.

 

"May provision ang Constitution that the Supreme Court can check grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government," he said.

 

There are a few caveats though.

 

"The defense has to prove that the Senate impeachment court acted capriciously, arbitrarily, or vindictively against him, which is difficult to prove," Agabin said. 

 

Harry Roque agrees that alleging grave abuse of discretion would be difficult because the defense needs to prove that there was violation and disregard of the law in the conduct of the trial. And the violation has to be very grave for abuse to be there.

 

"It was important that the entire trial was conducted in a credible manner," Roque said. Value of getting as many guilty votes as possible

 

Human rights lawyer and law professor Ted Te was also impressed with the conduct of the trial: "The Senate President provided consistent, clear, and credible leadership all throughout the process and his explanation of his vote put on full display his undiminished intellectual prowess. He, more than any other person involved in the impeachment process, deserves to be congratulated."   

 

The fact that 20 out of 23 senators voted for a conviction may also be telling.

 

"There is a value to getting as many guilty votes as possible, even if 16 has been reached. Should there be a resort to the Supreme Court and the Court reviews, an overwhelming number of guilty votes would probably give the court pause before reversing the Senate," said Te. 

 

There may also be much value in Enrile's lengthy speech, a soliloquy which wrapped up the trial with a bow on top and even managed to admonish both parties before he actually voted, said Tony La Viña, dean of the Ateneo School of Government and a professor of Political Law Review at the UP College of Law. 

 

"Enrile’s speech is about anticipating Supreme Court intervention, making sure that a petition of certiorari on questions of law or abuse of discretion will not prosper. With this speech, the defense is effectively checkmated," La Viña said.

 

"In the face of a possible certiorari petition, Enrile ziplocked the case by tying up loose ends and putting a clear frame to the decision," added Te. A certiorari petition is a legal remedy for grave abuse by a court.

 

Happy with the results

 

Roque said he was happy with the results of the voting, as he believes that a contrary decision would have been a violation of equal protection of the law.

 

He was referring to the case of Delsa Flores, a court interpreter in Davao who was removed from office because she failed to declare a sari-sari store in her SALN, and whose case was cited by the prosecution in their oral arguments. At least five of the senator-judges mentioned Flores in their explanations of their vote.

 

The prosecution had argued that if a public employee was removed from office because of non-disclosure of a small asset in her SALN, the chief magistrate should also be similarly accountable.

 

Meanwhile, Te thinks Lapid's explanation of his vote stood out.

 

"Whether he realized it or not, Lapid's formulation comes closest to the standard required of a Senator-Judge, sitting in impeachment, that of the reasonableness to an ordinary person. It would be the closest approximation to conscience," Te noted on his Facebook page.

 

"I thought that Miriam, Villar and Alan Cayetano squandered their shot at history with rambling speeches (for Cayetano and Villar) and the meltdown by Miriam. It was a time to step up to the plate and render a historic judgment, not to enthrall oneself with one's own words, mope about past misfortunes or condescendingly lecture everyone else." he added. — Aileen Estoquia/DVM/VS/HS, GMA News