Hagad: The impeachment from the eyes of a retired justice

Monday, February 6, 2012

I SHALL waive my space this week in favor of a letter from somebody wiser and possessed with a clearer perspective than I am:

Dear Friends,

Have something to report? Tell us in text, photos or videos.

It is always good practice to be focused on the main issue of a case from beginning to end. This is because there are many side issues in the presentation and admission of evidence. Examples are those concerning the authenticity and relevance of documents and those questioning the lack of personal knowledge of a witness in his testimony. These are side issues which if one does not watch out, can potentially divert, obscure or even demean the very reasons that led to the filing of the case.

Just by reading the Articles of Impeachment, not as disjointed parts but as a whole, one can readily see that all its allegations, no matter how imperfectly they may have been crafted, support one another in questioning the honesty, integrity and credibility, in short, the moral fitness of Justice Corona to continue as Chief Justice. Thus, after having heard and evaluated all the evidence, pro and con, we appeal to the Senators to carefully examine and weigh his character in judging his suitability for the position. They should not be contented in merely making a finding that Justice Corona has or has not committed any of the acts specified in the complaint. Instead, they should ask themselves further how to resolve this ultimate and overriding issue: Will it be in the public interest if Justice Corona is allowed to continue heading the most sensitive branch of our government, the Judiciary, which more than ever in our history now needs protection from political influence and corrupt practices?

In judging the moral fitness of Justice Corona as Chief Magistrate, we have to understand the nature of an impeachment trial. We do this to see if the Senate as judge has the competence and obligation to resolve this important issue. In a criminal proceeding the imposable penalty on an accused is fine and/or imprisonment and once imposed and served the demand of society for retribution is deemed fulfilled. But in an impeachment case the end result and objective of the proceeding is different. Not only does it punish the erring official with removal it also has to create a change of governance in the office to be vacated. Impeachment therefore punishes and at the same time provides a remedy to restore the integrity and vitality of the office which has been soiled with anomalies. In other words, when confronted with corruption in high places impeachment is the constitutional solution of the people to restore good government and credibility in public office. In this context, is it not wise and proper for the Senate to determine the moral fitness of Chief Justice Corona to continue in office until he reaches 70? Is this not a valid issue in his trial even if not explicitly alleged in the Articles of Impeachment?

Ricardo Pronove, Jr.
Retired Justice
Author and Lecturer on Evidence
UP College of Law, Class 52