What is Impeachment? Impeachment is a fundamental constitutional power belonging to Congress to formally charge a serving government official with an impeachable offense. It is a safeguard against corruption and the ultimate check on abuse of power. By providing this power to Congress, the framers of the Constitution drew on a long tradition of democratic skepticism about leaders. These provisions ensure that leaders will serve the people only so long as they respect the law and their offices. In this sense, the power of impeachment stands ready to thwart tyranny.
The Power of Impeachment however, is a double edged sword and can, by itself, be an act of tyranny. A case in point is the recent impeachment of the Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court. Generally, under the Constitution, a citizen with an endorsement of a member of the House of Representative may file an impeachment complaint. The House Committee on Justice will decide by majority vote if the complaint is sufficient in substance and in form. If there is probable cause, the House of Representatives then will vote to impeach the official for which a one-third vote is required.
(http://www.abrenian.com/3/post/2011/12/corona-impeachment-an-act-of-tyranny.html)
At this impeachment trial of Chief Justice Corona, it's bad enough that the Philippine society suffer from a basic lack of an ethic of trust.The lack of the right kind of trust in Philippines society is evident in how the seemingly lack of admissible evidence or credible witnesses demonstrated in court. Since day one they have shown that they were not very prepared what was supposed to be their actions for their explosive evidence agaist CJ Corona. A lot of people are baffled by how the prosecutors are getting frustrated with having to follow the rules of the court.
The issue of what standard of evidence will be used in determining the fate of Chief Justice Renato Corona has cropped up in the impeachment trial at the Senate. The prosecution is of the opinion that the standard should be “substantial evidence”, while the defense claims that it should be “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise. [Montemayor v. Bundalian, 453 Phil. 158, 167 (2003).]
Proof beyond reasonable doubt means proof to the satisfaction of the court and keeping in mind the presumption of innocence that precludes every reasonable hypothesis except that for which it is given. It is not sufficient for the proof to establish a probability, even though strong, that the fact charged is more likely true than the contrary. It must establish the truth of the fact to a reasonable certainty and moral certainty – a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it. [People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 132895, March 10, 2004, 425 SCRA 136, 166, citing United States v. Reyes, 3 Phil. 6 (1903).]
At this time, the impeachment trial wouldn't conclude for social justice.
The Power of Impeachment however, is a double edged sword and can, by itself, be an act of tyranny. A case in point is the recent impeachment of the Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court. Generally, under the Constitution, a citizen with an endorsement of a member of the House of Representative may file an impeachment complaint. The House Committee on Justice will decide by majority vote if the complaint is sufficient in substance and in form. If there is probable cause, the House of Representatives then will vote to impeach the official for which a one-third vote is required.
(http://www.abrenian.com/3/post/2011/12/corona-impeachment-an-act-of-tyranny.html)
At this impeachment trial of Chief Justice Corona, it's bad enough that the Philippine society suffer from a basic lack of an ethic of trust.The lack of the right kind of trust in Philippines society is evident in how the seemingly lack of admissible evidence or credible witnesses demonstrated in court. Since day one they have shown that they were not very prepared what was supposed to be their actions for their explosive evidence agaist CJ Corona. A lot of people are baffled by how the prosecutors are getting frustrated with having to follow the rules of the court.
The issue of what standard of evidence will be used in determining the fate of Chief Justice Renato Corona has cropped up in the impeachment trial at the Senate. The prosecution is of the opinion that the standard should be “substantial evidence”, while the defense claims that it should be “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise. [Montemayor v. Bundalian, 453 Phil. 158, 167 (2003).]
Proof beyond reasonable doubt means proof to the satisfaction of the court and keeping in mind the presumption of innocence that precludes every reasonable hypothesis except that for which it is given. It is not sufficient for the proof to establish a probability, even though strong, that the fact charged is more likely true than the contrary. It must establish the truth of the fact to a reasonable certainty and moral certainty – a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it. [People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 132895, March 10, 2004, 425 SCRA 136, 166, citing United States v. Reyes, 3 Phil. 6 (1903).]
At this time, the impeachment trial wouldn't conclude for social justice.
