'No specific proof required in impeach case'

MANILA, Philippines - After the eight Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato Corona are presented, discussed and refuted, the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, would have to decide on whether to convict or acquit.

During last Tuesday’s trial, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago posed the question to both the defense and prosecution panels about the standard of evidence that would be used to determine guilt on the part of the impeached official.

The defense panel argued that it must be proof beyond reasonable doubt because the penalty imposed on the impeached official, if convicted, is very severe.

Conviction would result in removal from office and perpetual disqualification from public office.

The prosecution panel, on the other hand, argued that substantial evidence should be enough to prove guilt.

According to the prosecution, they are treating the case as one that is similar to an administrative case, so the preponderance of evidence should be enough to convict.

Election lawyer Romulo Macalintal, who has been following the impeachment trial as an independent analyst, argued that there is no specific or precise degree of proof required in an impeachment case.

A senator-judge can decide on whatever basis he feels like using and whatever this is cannot be disputed by any of the parties involved.

“This means that the decision or the vote of a senator-judge, as well as the appreciation of the evidence submitted by the parties, is left to the senator’s own sense of judgment,” Macalintal said.