Terms of the Law, Week 7

by Karol Ann Ilagan

THE DEFENSE PANEL had been trying to nullify the impeachment proceedings by going to the very heart of the issue – was there a valid impeachment complaint to begin with, or did the House of Representatives skip several vital steps in rushing the impeachment articles through Congress?

With that, no trial day at the Senate would be complete without a dose of legalese from the prosecution and defense lawyers and the Senator-Judges. Here is a review of some legal terms from last week’s proceedings.

Sine qua non
“Sine qua non” refers to an essential condition; a thing that is absolutely necessary. It is Latin for “without which it could not be.”

Last March 12, chief defense counsel Serafin Cuevas referred to “due process” as the “condition sine qua non” of the impeachment trial against the Chief Justice. This condition, he reasoned, was lacking because Corona was immediately impeached at the House of Representatives even if probable cause was not determined or there were no evidence or allegations that would prove the existence of probable cause.

“The due process clause enshrined in our fundamental law is a condition sine qua non that cannot be ignored in any proceeding,” Cuevas said in media reports. The retired Supreme Court associate justice also said Corona was not given due process when the impeachment complaint was transmitted to the Senate without any notice given to the respondent.

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat
“Ignorantia legis neminem excusat” is a Latin maxim that means “ignorance of the law does not excuse” or “ignorance of the law excuses no one.” It follows that awareness of law is a general legal requirement; a person who is unaware of a law cannot escape liability merely because of the unawareness of that law. This expression can also be found in Article III of the Philippine Civil Code, which provides: “Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.”

Last Thursday, Senator-Judge Ralph Recto posed questions to both the prosecution and defense on the law that requires public officials and employees to put the assessed value, current fair market value, and acquisition cost of properties in their SALNs. Cuevas said he cannot recall of any exact provisions in the law that makes this a requirement.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile interrupted and said, “Whatever it is, the duty is imposed by the Constitution and all of us, whether lawyer or accountant, know what is the meaning of asset, know what is the meaning of liabilities, and know what is the meaning of net worth.”

“Ignorantia legis neminem excusat,” Enrile added.

Rule VII of the implementing rules of Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides that the SALN shall contain information on the “real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value, and current fair market value,” among others.

Mala prohibita
“Mala prohibita” or “malum prohibita” is Latin for “wrong due to being prohibited.” It refers to acts made illegal by statute to benefit public welfare, not because they are inherently evil and obvious violations of society’s standards. Generally, they do not involve immediate injury or damage to others. Some examples of mala prohibita acts include violations of regulatory acts, insider trading, and tax avoidance.

Last week, Cuevas reportedly said that omissions of properties or bank accounts in the SALNs of public officials do not necessarily mean betrayal of public trust unless there is malice. The prosecution, meanwhile, said that “good faith, ignorance, or lack of malice can’t be used as a defense against mala prohibita acts that violate special laws such as R.A. No. 6713 and R.A. No. 3019.”

Ejusdem generis
“Ejusdem generis” or “eiusdem generis” is Latin for “of or as the same kind.” It denotes a rule for interpreting statutes or laws and other writings by assuming that a general term describing a list of specific terms denotes other things that are like the specific elements.

As in the first weeks of the trial, the “ejusdem generis” rule was often cited when defining an impeachable offense. The 1987 Constitution enumerates the grounds for impeachment as “culpable violation of the constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes or betrayal of public trust.” The word “other” is significant in this provision, according to constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas. In his Inquirer column, he wrote that under the “eiusdem generis” rule, when the law makes an enumeration of specific objects and follows it with “other” unspecified objects, those unspecified objects must be of the same nature as those specified. “Thus for ‘graft and corruption’ and ‘betrayal of public trust’ to be grounds for impeachment, their concrete manner of commitment must be of the same severity as ‘treason’ and ‘bribery,’ offenses that strike at the very heart of the life of the nation,” Bernas said.

References: www.merriam-webster.com, www.oxforddictionaries.com, www.law.cornell.edu, www.abs-cbnnews.com, www.definitions.uslegal.com ,www.philstar.com, www.inquirer.net