impeachments, are, impartiality, integrity, intelligence, and independence. If either of these is wanting, the trial must be radically imperfect. To ensure impartiality, the body must be in some degree removed from popular power and passions, from the influence of sectional prejudice, and from the more dangerous influence of mere party spirit.”98 76. Furthermore, the jurisdictional nature of the function exercised by Congress in impeachment proceedings does not infringe the separation of powers, because it does not prevent one branch of power from exercising functions that, in principle, correspond to another. As Loewenstein explains, this is an exceptional case in which Congress exercises judicial functions.99 77. Meanwhile, a contemporary understanding of impeachment should consider it to be a real “constitutional guarantee” in the actual conception of constitutional procedural law.100 The only way to understand the “control” exercised by Congress by means of this proceeding is in a sense that accords with the constitutional rule of law; that is, as a vehicle for implementing limitations to power in order to avoid its abuse.101 But, if this is the purpose of impeachment, the very least that can be required of the body conducting it is precisely that its implementation does not convert it into a weapon against the constitutional State itself, which would occur if it was the Legislature that exceeded its powers of prosecution and incurred in an abuse of power against those who it was prosecuting. As one author has indicated, “the dangerous aspect of the matter is that impeachment is very useful for carrying out dismissals in order to remove from the chambers all the minority legislators who do not obey the orders of the majority group or alliance. But also, owing to the way in which it is conceived, it leaves in the hands of those who have a sufficient majority in the legislative organs the possibility of easily annulling the other public organs, bringing them to a halt, dominating them and, finally, ending their independence”102 (italics added). 78. Although the organ with competence to hear and decide an impeachment proceeding is a political organ (in those countries where the Legislature has this power), the whole process must be conducted with legal meticulousness, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and the legal norms that regulate it,103 as well as with the relevant standards established in the Convention. Impeachment involves a trial similar to a judicial proceeding, in the sense that the legislative chamber that is conducting the hearing in some way becomes a professional judge. It involves legal control insofar as it is regulated by law, and also jurisdictional control because it cannot be understood to be exempt of the formal and substantial element of due process. Thus, González Oropeza had defined impeachment as the “proceeding to establish the individual or official responsibility of a public servant 98 Story, Joseph, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Cambridge/Boston, 1833, Volume II, Chapter X: The Senate, para. 743 99 Loewenstein, Karl, Teoría de la Constitución, translated by Alfredo Gallego Anabitarte, Barcelona, Ariel, 2ª ed., 1976, p. 297. 100 Fix-Zamudio, Héctor, Estudio de la defensa de la Constitución en el ordenamiento mexicano, 2ª ed., México, Porrúa/UNAM, 2011, p. 191; Ferrer Mac-Gregor, Eduardo, Panorámica del derecho procesal constitucional and convencional, Madrid, Marcial Pons-UNAM, 2013. 101 Cf. Aragón, Manuel, op. cit., pp. 121-122. 102 Valdés S., Clemente, El juicio político. La impunidad, los encubrimientos y otras formas de opresión, México, Ediciones Coyoacán, 2000, p. 190. 103 Cf. Carpizo, Jorge, “Algunas garantías procesal-constitucionales en México”, in the author’s book, Temas constitucionales, 2ª ed., Mexico, Porrúa/UNAM, 2003, pp. 229-230. 20