Q. No. 15 | Political Law | Bar 2023
Filed before the House of Representatives were Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Urduja for corruption, betrayal of public trust, and culpable violation of the Constitution. After a heavily publicized trial, the Senate, sitting as Impeachment Court, rendered a judgment removing Urduja from her position, with the additional penalty of disqualification to hold any other public office. However, during the pendency of the criminal, administrative, and civil cases subsequently filed against her, Urduja died due to health complications. The heirs of Urduja filed a petition before the Supreme Court for the release of her accrued retirement benefits and other gratuities as a member of the Judiciary. Senate President Francisco opined that the petition of the heirs of Urduja should be denied in view of her removal by impeachment. Is Francisco correct? Decide with reasons.
Note: for this question, apply the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Re: LETTER OF MRS. MA. CRISTINA ROCO CORONA REQUESTING THE GRANT OF RETIREMENT AND OTHER BENEFITS TO THE LATE FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA AND HER CLAIM FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION AS HIS WIFE UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946
Suggested answer
NO, Francisco is not correct.
The effects of a judgment on an
impeachment complaint extends
no further than to removal from
office and disqualification from
holding any public office.
but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
Article II, Section 4 only stated that the impeached official
"shall be removed from Office" upon conviction. Article I, Section 3 also provided that "[j]udgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States."
By sharply distinguishing a criminal prosecution from an impeachment, the Framers had made it clear that impeachment is not the means intended to redress and punish offenses against the state, but rather a mere political safeguard designed to preserve the state and its system of laws from internal harm. Precisely, it was not crafted to mete out punishment. [1]
In the same vein, impeachment does not imply immunity from court processes, nor does it preclude other forms of discipline.
The US Court of Appeals ruled that "[t]he [US] Constitution does not forbid the trial of a federal judge for criminal offenses committed either before or after his or her assumption of judicial office. Art. I, § 3, cl. 7, declaring that an impeached person is "subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law", does not cloak the person with immunity from indictment prior to or after being impeached.[2]
NOTE: Owing to our country's intertwined history with US expansionism in the Orient in the 19th century, our own basic law is worded and interpreted not too differently from that of the US as regards impeachment of public officers.
Meanwhile, Father Bernas (one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution elucidated on the matter:
The object of the process is not to punish but only to remove a person from office. As Justice Storey put it in his commentary on the Constitution, impeachment is "a proceeding, purely of a political nature, is not so much designed to punish an offender as to secure the state against gross political misdemeanors. It touches neither his person nor his property, but simply divests him of his political capacity." Put differently, removal and disqualification are the only punishments that can be imposed upon conviction on impeachment. Criminal and civil liability can follow after the officer has been removed by impeachment. Prosecution after impeachment does not constitute prohibited double jeopardy[3]
Impeachment is, thus, designed to remove the impeachable officer from office, not punish him.[4] It is purely political, and it is neither civil, criminal, nor administrative in nature. No legally actionable liability attaches to the public officer by a mere judgment of impeachment against him or her, and thus lies the necessity for a separate conviction for charges that must be properly filed with courts of law.
The nature and effect of impeachment proceedings is so limiting that forum shopping or alleged violation of the right against double jeopardy could not even be successfully invoked upon the institution of the separate complaints or Information.
RELATED |
The criminal law principle of double jeopardy also finds no application against an impeached public officer.
Double jeopardy exists when the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first.[27] A first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.[28] The right against a second conviction for the same offense shall not be imperiled upon a mere judgment of impeachment. Suffice it to state that a first jeopardy finds no opportunity to arise at that point, as the essence of impeachment is not criminal in nature.
In fine, a judgment of impeachment per se connotes mere removal from the post. Since our Constitution expressly limited the nature of impeachment, its effects must consequently and necessarily be confined within the constitutional limits. Impeachment proceedings are entirely separate, distinct, and independent from any other actionable wrong or cause of action a party may have against the impeached officer, even if such wrong or cause of action may have a colorable connection to the grounds for which the officer have been impeached.
RELATED |
RE: An impeached public officer whose
civil, criminal, or administrative
liability was not judicially
established may be considered
involuntarily retired from service.
After the judgment of impeachment was announced on May 29, 2012, tax evasion charges,[32] criminal cases for perjury,[33] administrative complaints for violation of the RA 6713 of the Code of Conduct of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and a civil case for forfeiture[34] were slapped against Chief Justice Corona in 2014.
These charges, however, were terminated upon his demise.
How, then, will a failure to judicially convict for any liability post-impeachment affect the employment status, retirement benefits, survivorship pension, and other emoluments pertaining to the impeached?
The Court deems Chief Justice Corona to have been involuntarily retired from public service due to the peculiar circumstances surrounding his removal by impeachment, without forfeiture of his retirement benefits and other allowances.
Retirement is the termination of one's own employment or career, especially upon reaching a certain age or for health reasons.[35] To retire is to withdraw from one's position or occupation, or to conclude one's active working life[36] or professional career. Old age is the usual ground that retires one from work. It is not, however, the sole reason therefor. Other reasons may permanently bar a person from returning to the workforce like serious physical impediments, personal choice, dissolution of the office or position, or exercise of the employer's prerogative. The term may even refer to judges and justices who "retire" due to permanent disability, whether total or partial, or who died or were killed while in actual service.[37] Retirement then may be voluntary or involuntary.[38] Retirement is voluntary when one decides upon one's own unilateral and independent volition to permanently cease the exercise of one's occupation. Retirement is deemed involuntary when one's profession is terminated for reasons outside the control and discretion of the worker. Impeachment resulting in removal from holding office falls under the column on involuntary retirement.
The working tenets of this case bear tireless repetition. A respondent in impeachment proceedings does not risk forfeiture of the constitutional rights to life, liberty, or property.[39] A separate determination of liability under the courts of law is necessary to withhold such rights. Sans judicial conviction, the impeached official shall only be removed from office, with the Senate being empowered with the discretion to impose the additional penalty of permanent disqualification from holding any and all further public office.
RELATED |
RE: Equity Jurisdiction
This is where equity comes in. Under the prevailing circumstances, the fairer and more equitable treatment of the present claim for post-employment privileges is to first consider Chief Justice Corona as involuntarily retired, rather than to dismiss it outright without citing any legal basis. Equity is the material that fills in the open spaces in the silence, obscurity, or insufficiency of the law.[40] Where the prescribed or customary forms of ordinary law are inadequate, equity is the principle by which substantial justice shall be attained.[41] Needless to state, courts of law are courts of equity. The exercise of equity jurisdiction vows to do complete justice upon certain exceptional cases. This equity jurisdiction may be invoked despite applicable relevant laws, if their inflexibility would inflict injustice in the process.[42]
The Constitution may authorize the removal of a public official from his post upon just cause as determined by the Congress. However, the Constitution also dictates that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Court shall not be the first hand to brush aside the most basic law of the land.
An impeached public officer whose
civil, criminal, or administrative
liability was not judicially
established is entitled to the
retirement benefits provided under
RAs 9946 and 8291.
[…] However, whether criminal, civil, or administrative, no court imposed any such liability upon the late Chief Justice. Impeachment is only preparatory to liability. Since a removal by impeachment does not explicitly provide for forfeiture as a consequence thereof, as opposed to a criminal conviction carrying the penalty of perpetual or absolute disqualification, an impeached official, like former Chief Justice Corona, cannot be deprived of his retirement benefits on the sole ground of his removal. Such forfeiture could have been imposed upon criminal conviction which, however, was pre-empted by his death. Viewing it from another angle, a judgment of liability in a separate legal proceeding is a resolutory condition after a verdict of ouster by impeachment has been rendered, in that the impeached official retains all the post-employment privileges already earned unless otherwise declared by the competent tribunals. Until his liability under the law is so established before the courts of law, retirement eligibility and benefits have properly accrued to Chief Justice Corona when he was removed by impeachment on May 29, 2012. There being no such determination of liability, his entitlement thereto subsisted.
Retirement laws are liberally construed and administered in favor of the persons intended to be benefited, and all doubts are resolved in favor of the retiree to achieve their humanitarian purpose.[45] One such humanitarian purpose is to provide financial means once life continues on but without a salary to support the retiree and his/her family.
Such was the objective of RA 10154, or An Act Requiring All Concerned Government Agencies to Ensure the Early Release of the Retirement Pay, Pensions, Gratuities and Other Benefits of Retiring Government Employees. Section 1, RA 10154.
Read the full text at
FOOTNOTES:
3 Bernas, Joaquin G. The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of The Philippines: A Commentary. Rex Book Store, Manila, Philippines (2003).
4 Impeachment[:] A Political and Historical Guide. https://www.gov.ph/documents/20147/233614/ImpeachmentPrimer.pdf/72801f41-71el-ae60-d5bb-c69dbf622994?version=l .0. Accessed January 4, 2021.
FOLLOW US!
📎 Bio
🛒 Shop
⚖️ Blog
🤝 Business
Comments