[Just Saying] Refocusing the impeachment

Guia Abogado

It is deeply frustrating to watch a vital constitutional mechanism get bogged down by what many perceive as criminal trial tactics and partisan delays

AT A GLANCE

• The impeachment trial is at risk of mimicking a criminal trial, which could confuse the public and detract from its primary purpose of assessing public trust in officials.
• Impeachment does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt; instead, it focuses on whether an official's actions undermine public confidence, which can be evaluated through straightforward questions about their conduct.
• The impeachment court's recent ruling on the voting threshold reflects a commitment to maintaining the trial's integrity, emphasizing the need to avoid rigid criminal standards that could hinder the court's constitutional duties.

This is AI-generated. Read the article for full context. Report any errors.

Both the judges and the public must immediately take a step back and refocus on the true, vital purpose of this impeachment trial. There is a real danger that the proceeding is straying into a bad imitation of a criminal trial. This shift can lower the overall quality of the trial, confusing the public, and steering the process away from its core objective.

This confusion — I believe — is the primary reason the trial has been perceived as becoming protracted. When an impeachment court acts like a criminal court, it gets fixated on strict legal technicalities that belong in a regular courtroom. But impeachment is not designed to put anyone in prison or strip away personal liberties. That is why it does not require proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Forcing criminal standards onto an impeachment trial distorts the process and wastes critical time.

The most important distinction to keep in mind is that public trust is a matter of confidence, not criminal guilt. If Vice President Sara Duterte committed acts that violate criminal laws, she must answer for them in the proper legal forum — such as regular courts or the Ombudsman — where criminal liability is determined. Impeachment, however, serves a completely different function: protecting public office by deciding whether an official still deserves the public’s confidence to hold power.

In an impeachment trial, the goal is not to prove a crime beyond a doubt — though, in the process,  it can also be accomplished. The actual test is whether the evidence presented is clear enough to convince a reasonable person that the official’s actions are so highly questionable and irregular that they destroy trust in that office. An official does not need to be a convicted criminal to be unfit for leadership. Serious, evidence-backed irregularities that compromise integrity are more than enough to show that public trust can no longer be granted.

To see how this is a question of public confidence rather than technical criminal guilt, we only need to look at simple, common-sense questions. For example, when the Vice President in full public view made what appears to be a threatening remark against the President, the First Lady, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, does that inspire extrajudicial killing and not the rule of law? When millions of pesos in public money were withdrawn in cash and placed in “gym bags,” does that at least require a compelling reason for justification? When a Vice President should concentrate full-time on her official job, does having business interests smack of a conflict of interest? None of these questions require a years-long criminal trial to evaluate. They are plain, direct questions about whether an official’s conduct maintains or destroys public confidence.

This fundamental principle was demonstrated when the Impeachment Court itself — exercising its own constitutional authority — voted 13–1 to resolve the debate on the two-thirds voting threshold. The Senate sitting as an impeachment court rightly clarified that the two-thirds requirement is not an inflexible, static number fixed at 16. Instead, it is a variable calculated strictly from the senator-judges who are legally and factually capable of sitting to try and decide the case (“while sitting for that purpose”).

By making this determination internally, the Impeachment Court asserted its sole constitutional power to keep its proceedings moving forward. The ruling reflects a practical constitutional reality: empty seats, medical absences, or non-participating members cannot be allowed to paralyze an institution tasked with holding high officials accountable.

Just as the Impeachment Court recognized that its voting denominator must reflect the actual judges sitting to do the work, the court and the public must also recognize that the evidentiary standard must reflect the actual nature of the trial. Observing and implementing a rigid, criminal-level proof is just another way of paralyzing the court’s constitutional duty.

It is deeply frustrating to watch a vital constitutional mechanism get bogged down by what many perceive as criminal trial tactics and partisan delays. Every day spent debating technicalities that belong in a criminal defense motion is a day stolen from the core question: Does this Vice President still command the confidence required to hold public trust?

Despite these setbacks, there is still reason to hope. The Impeachment Court’s own resolution on the voting threshold shows a willingness to cut through rigid misinterpretations to preserve institutional function. If the senator-judges and the public now apply that same clear-eyed perspective to the evidence itself, the trial can finally shed — what many believe —as its criminal trial pretenses and fulfill its true constitutional objective: safeguarding the integrity of public trust. Acquit or convict the Impeachment Court must, but it should be done abiding by the spirit of the Constitution. – Rappler.com

Mel Sta. Maria is former dean of the Far Eastern University Institute of Law. He teaches law at FEU, the Ateneo School of Law, the University of Sto. Tomas, Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, University of Makati, and Manuel L. Quezon University. He also hosts shows on both radio and YouTube, and has authored several books on law, politics, and current events.