“Acquittal or conviction, walang reprimand, walang admonition,” explained Senate President Juan Ponce-Enrile on what awaits Chief Justice Renato Corona at the end of his impeachment trial next week.
“It is either removal or not removal,” he clarified in a press conference on Friday, regarding Corona’s fate to be decided next Monday or Tuesday by the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court, bringing to a close the five-month-old trial that has fixated the nation.
Enrile's view, however, differs from that propounded by Senator-judge Miriam Defensor Santiago in late January during the trial.
Miriam: Censure is allowed
Santiago explained that the wording of Article XI, Section 3 (7) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution – that “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office” – meant the Senate can give a punishment lower than removal from office.
The interpretation of Santiago, a constitutional law expert, is bolstered by the development of the wording on impeachment penalties as found in the 1973 and 1987 charters.
Article XIII, section 4 of the 1973 Constitution provided that “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall be limited to removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit under the Republic of the Philippines.”
In other words, this provision in the 1973 Constitution had expressly limited the penalty in impeachment cases to removal only – as Enrile views it. Perpetual disqualification from public office is just a subsidiary or ancillary penalty that follows removal.
But the 1987 Constitution has changed the wording for the penalty in impeachment cases.
As pointed out by Santiago, the current constitution provides: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines,…"
University of the Philippines (UP) law professor Rowena Daroy-Morales said on Wednesday that this provision could possibly allow for a penalty less than removal from office – such as censure or even suspension.
“Puwedeng mangyari na convicted siya pero suspended (lang) siya,” explained Morales. “Sabihang huwag na uulitin, or a variation of those things.”
Dean Agabin concurs with Enrile
But former UP law dean Pacifico Agabin, himself also a constitutional law expert, believes Enrile’s interpretation is the correct one.
In an interview with GMA News on Tuesday. Agabin said he considers censure and suspension as “inappropriate” penalties for public officials convicted upon impeachment.
“Iyung pag-transmit ng articles of impeachment from the House (of Representatives) to the Senate, censure na iyon,” he said.
“Iyung suspension naman parang inappropriate,” he added. “Kasi (kapag) ang judgment ng Senado you are suspended as chief justice for betrayal of public trust – don't you think that is inappropriate and incongruous?”
Corona was impeached for “betrayal of public trust” and “culpable violation of the Constitution.” — Marlon Anthony Tonson/ELR/HS, GMA News
