Removal through Impeachment by Isagani Cruz

Removal through impeachment
First posted 06:28pm (Mla time)
June 26, 2005
By Isagani Cruz
Inquirer News Service

THE CURRENT talks about removing President Macapagal-Arroyo through impeachment is the reason for this brief reminder on the subject. This is a matter most lawyers are conversant with but not the rest of our people who have what we may call only a nodding acquaintance with this process.
Described as "the most formidable weapon in the arsenal of democracy," it is not as impressive as it may seem. Less dramatically viewed, it is an extraordinary means of removal exercised by the legislature over a selected number of high government officials. The purpose is to ensure the utmost care in their indictment and conviction, and the imposition of special penalties commensurate with the nature and degree of the offense committed and the high status of the wrongdoers.
In actual practice, impeachment may be a "rusted blunderbuss," as Rossiter points out, often aimed as a political threat but seldom ever actually fired. It was attempted against only two American presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, who were both absolved. Richard Nixon could have been impeached and found guilty over the Watergate scandal, but he avoided his conviction by resigning.
In this country, impeachment proceedings were filed against Presidents Elpidio Quirino, Diosdado Macapagal and Ferdinand Marcos, all of which were effectively blocked. But the resolution to impeach Joseph Estrada was different; it was signed by the required number in the House of Representatives and successfully transmitted to the Senate through a maneuver of then Speaker Manuel Villar. That began the first impeachment trial in the Philippines that was, however, not completed.
The walk-out of 10 senators over a procedural issue suspended the trial and provoked what later became Edsa II. The size and rage of the demonstrators and their plan to march on Malacañang panicked Erap and made him flee to his private residence with a farewell message to the nation. The Supreme Court interpreted his act as a resignation and allowed Vice President Arroyo to take over as his constitutional successor. Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. himself administered her oath of office, with the members of the Supreme Court in attendance.
President Arroyo's foes are hoping for a reprise of that historic experience, but not through another people power demonstration. At least not immediately. They hope to eject her from Malacañang through the lawful process of impeachment, for which they believe they have sufficient grounds. The Constitution states these grounds as "culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust." They passionately contend she is guilty on all counts.
The administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo may be laughing at them for being ignorantly optimistic. Their plan to expel her is not as simple as all that. The Constitution provides that a resolution to impeach must be supported by at least one-third of all the members of the House of Representatives. As there are now 236 such members, at least 79 of them will be needed for the purpose. The present opposition in the chamber cannot raise that number against the Rainbow Coalition controlled by Speaker Jose de Venecia, who is loyal to President Arroyo.
Even if the required members of the chamber are persuaded to file the resolution to impeach, there is the higher obstacle of convicting her by the two-thirds vote from the Senate required by the Constitution. The opposition also doesn't have 16 senators in its ranks against Senate President Franklin Drilon and his colleagues who are expected to protect Ms Arroyo.
If the impeachment of Estrada had continued, his 11 allies in the Senate would have held fast and proclaimed his innocence. The other 10 members then were against Erap but were not enough to remove him. Even if Sen. Robert Barbers who was then in the United States could have joined them on the final vote, the 11 senators who were for Estrada's conviction would have been 5 votes short for such verdict.
The one-third vote to impeach President Arroyo and the two-thirds vote to convict her are not possible at this time. But President Arroyo should not be so confident of the numbers in Congress because there is still the bigger and more decisive number in the sovereign people.
The process of impeachment may perform another function even if it may not be able to remove the respondent directly. The proceedings in Congress may so provoke the people outside to decide for themselves if the person being tried is innocent or guilty. During the trial of Joseph Estrada, the prosecution panel led by then Rep. Joker P. Arroyo so demolished Erap's presumption of innocence that the people who were following the proceedings decided for themselves that Estrada should be removed.
A similar sentence may await Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Her favorite law office should exert gargantuan efforts to refute the mounting evidence that she has neither title nor integrity to be the President of the Philippines. If this judgment cannot come from the impeachment trial, it may be pronounced by the people themselves as the court of last resort.