Judge Ray Alan T. Drilon, the author of the following impartial and lucid article, finished his law studies at the University of the Philippines, Diliman. This post was originally published January 13,2012 in his blog at The Keeper of Spring and is reposted here with his kind permission.
I find it interesting that in the impending impeachment proceedings before the Senate, the Senate is described as an “impeachment Court” the process is described as an “impeachment trial”, the House of Representatives Panel entrusted with presenting evidence, is described as the “Prosecution Panel” and the defenders of the embattled Chief Justice, as “Defense Counsels.”
The awkwardness in the description is troublesome because it gives the impression that what will unfold is a trial similar to a criminal prosecution, which impeachment, is not.
I was struck by the statement of my former law professor Justice Serafin Cuevas, (Ret.) in his interview with the media that the “Prosecution Panel” should be disciplined by the “Impeachment court” for its unbridled publicity of evidentiary matters relating to the case. The good Justice said rules are being violated. On the other hand, Rep. Tupas chief of the prosecution panel, sees nothing wrong with pandering to the media’s eye the significance of what they have as proof. After all, Tupas, opines, the rules of procedure in the courts of law, do not strictly apply to impeachment, which is not judicial.
Both opinions seem to be correct, although, I am partial to the view of Justice Cuevas. While impeachment may not strictly be a judicial proceeding, yet, it should be conducted in a proper and orderly manner following the Senate’s impeachment rules. That impeachment is not a judicial inquiry, is no argument to create a public circus out of it. Impeachment may not be judicial but it is basically a legal and constitutional process. Perhaps it can be fairly characterized as quasi judicial. The lawyers who will appear in this trial are naturally expected to invoke well established legal principles, as already shown in their actions, which would likely be cumbersome, even worse when the proceedings are not conducted in an orderly manner.
As I ponder on the legal ramifications, it is possible, that the first round of the hearings will bog down in legal technicalities, as these brilliant legal luminaries lock horns in this historic trial. The boring Clinton impeachment, will be a far cry.
But what is exceedingly remarkable is the fact that here we find the Chief Magistrate of the land, and head of the of the Judicial Branch, being “prosecuted” by the House of Representatives of the Legislative Branch, before the “ judgment seat” of the Senate of the same Legislative Branch of government. In principle they are separate, independent, and coequal, yet in this situation, the two are more equal than the other.
There is here an amazing reversal of roles. The legislative branch has turned into Prosecutor and Judge rolled into one. The Chief Magistrate, the head of the Judiciary and all courts of the land is hailed and tried before this monolithic body of lawmakers, who constitutionally, are suppose to be exercising legislative functions and not judicial. This is a mystifying constitutional doctrine indeed.
and 
.
.
.![\begin{array}{rl}y + \Delta(y) &= f(x+\Delta(x))/ g(x+ \Delta(x)) = [u + \Delta(u)]/[v+\Delta(v)]\\y &= f(x)/ g(x) = u/v\\\Delta(y)=\frac{\Delta(y)}{\Delta(x)} &= \frac{u + \Delta(u)}{v+\Delta(v)}-\frac{u}{v}\\ &=\frac{uv + v\Delta(u)-u\Delta(v)-uv}{v[v+\Delta(v)]}\\\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x} &= \frac{v\frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x} - u \frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x}}{v[v+\Delta(v)]}\\\frac{dy}{dx}=\lim_{\Delta x\to 0}\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x} &= \lim_{\Delta x\to 0}\frac{v\frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x} - u \frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x}}{v[v+\Delta(v)]}\\\end{array}](http://l.wordpress.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cbegin%7Barray%7D%7Brl%7Dy%20%2B%20%5CDelta%28y%29%20%26%3D%20f%28x%2B%5CDelta%28x%29%29%2F%20g%28x%2B%20%5CDelta%28x%29%29%20%3D%20%5Bu%20%2B%20%5CDelta%28u%29%5D%2F%5Bv%2B%5CDelta%28v%29%5D%5C%5Cy%20%26%3D%20f%28x%29%2F%20g%28x%29%20%3D%20u%2Fv%5C%5C%5CDelta%28y%29%3D%5Cfrac%7B%5CDelta%28y%29%7D%7B%5CDelta%28x%29%7D%20%26%3D%20%5Cfrac%7Bu%20%2B%20%5CDelta%28u%29%7D%7Bv%2B%5CDelta%28v%29%7D-%5Cfrac%7Bu%7D%7Bv%7D%5C%5C%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%26%3D%5Cfrac%7Buv%20%2B%20v%5CDelta%28u%29-u%5CDelta%28v%29-uv%7D%7Bv%5Bv%2B%5CDelta%28v%29%5D%7D%5C%5C%5Cfrac%7B%5CDelta%20y%7D%7B%5CDelta%20x%7D%20%26%3D%20%5Cfrac%7Bv%5Cfrac%7B%5CDelta%20u%7D%7B%5CDelta%20x%7D%20-%20u%20%5Cfrac%7B%5CDelta%20u%7D%7B%5CDelta%20x%7D%7D%7Bv%5Bv%2B%5CDelta%28v%29%5D%7D%5C%5C%5Cfrac%7Bdy%7D%7Bdx%7D%3D%5Clim_%7B%5CDelta%20x%5Cto%200%7D%5Cfrac%7B%5CDelta%20y%7D%7B%5CDelta%20x%7D%20%26%3D%20%5Clim_%7B%5CDelta%20x%5Cto%200%7D%5Cfrac%7Bv%5Cfrac%7B%5CDelta%20u%7D%7B%5CDelta%20x%7D%20-%20u%20%5Cfrac%7B%5CDelta%20u%7D%7B%5CDelta%20x%7D%7D%7Bv%5Bv%2B%5CDelta%28v%29%5D%7D%5C%5C%5Cend%7Barray%7D&bg=FFFFFF&fg=000000&s=0 "\begin{array}{rl}y + \Delta(y) &= f(x+\Delta(x))/ g(x+ \Delta(x)) = [u + \Delta(u)]/[v+\Delta(v)]\\y &= f(x)/ g(x) = u/v\\\Delta(y)=\frac{\Delta(y)}{\Delta(x)} &= \frac{u + \Delta(u)}{v+\Delta(v)}-\frac{u}{v}\\ &=\frac{uv + v\Delta(u)-u\Delta(v)-uv}{v[v+\Delta(v)]}\\\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x} &= \frac{v\frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x} - u \frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x}}{v[v+\Delta(v)]}\\\frac{dy}{dx}=\lim_{\Delta x\to 0}\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x} &= \lim_{\Delta x\to 0}\frac{v\frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x} - u \frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x}}{v[v+\Delta(v)]}\\\end{array}")
approaches zero, so do 
and 
.
