COMMENTARY: Impeach first, prosecute later

There has been a lot of debate lately about whether or not the Vice-President is immune from criminal prosecution. The direct answer to that is NO, he is not immune, to which must be added: NEITHER is the President. The present travails of former President GMA should make that abundantly clear.

 

But the President, the Vice-President, the members of the Supreme Court, the members of the Article IX Commissions and the Obmudsman can be removed from office only by impeachment. 

 

The impeachment process is calculatedly tedious and cumbersome, so that only on the most serious of grounds (at least in theory!) and by direct action of the people's elected representatives may the highest officials of the land be ousted from office.

 

All officials who commit crimes while in office may be prosecuted, tried and sentenced, provided that they are first removed from office by impeachment, unless one is wiling to wait for their terms to be expire. 

 

Were criminal prosecution permitted against impeachable officials during their incumbency, with the result that they could be sentenced to suffer imprisonment before their terms expire, or to be penalized by dismissal or suspension from office, in administrative cases, then there would be a way of by-passing the impeachment process, which certainly is not what the constitution intends!

 

There is a case no one is talking about which should however be on everyone's mind, as the Supreme Court has already passed on this matter.  It is officially captioned "In re: First Indorsement from Hon. Raul Gonzalez Dated 16 March 1988 Requesting Honorable Justice Marcelo B. Fernan to Comment on an Anonymous Letter-Complaint" and is docketed as "A.M. No. 88-5433, April 15, 1988". 

 

Citing Chief Justice Enrique Fernando's treatise on the Constitution, the Court held:

"It is important to make clear that the Court is not here saying that its Members or the other constitutional officers we referred to above are entitled to immunity from liability for possibly criminal acts or for alleged violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics or other supposed misbehavior. What the Court is saying is that there is a fundamental procedural requirement that must be observed before such liability may be determined and enforced. A Member of the Supreme Court must first be removed from office via the constitutional route of impeachment under Sections 2 and 3 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Should the tenure of the Supreme Court Justice be thus terminated by impeachment, he may then be held to answer either criminally or administratively (by disbarment proceedings) for any wrong or misbehavior that may be proven against him in appropriate proceedings."

 

Earlier, the Court made clear the list of officials the doctrine was to apply to -- reproducing Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution:

"The provisions of the 1973 Constitution we referred to above in Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan are substantially reproduced in Article XI of the 1987 Constitution:

Sec. 2 The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. xxx"

 

Those who have gripes against the President, the Vice-President, members of the Supreme Court and others enumerated in the cited section of Article XI of the Constitution have two options: Lobby their representatives in Congress for the initiation of impeachment proceedings (and hope that there will still be time -- and will -- for that!), or await the end of their terms and then file charges against them.

Thus does our Constitution ordain. And its provisions are really not unreasonable, given our litigious proclivities in this country!
 

---