AS THE controversial Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte is about to enter its fourth month in October, Filipinos seem to be losing their appetite for monitoring the daily proceedings.
Instead, people appear more eager to know the latest developments involving former Speaker and Leyte 1st District congressman Martin Romualdez, as well as the next adventure of tennis superstar Alex Eala.
In Negros and Panay, meanwhile, Ilonggos are asking when Energy Secretary Sharon Garin will resign amid the rotating brownouts.
Impeachment? The public is bored. Why?
It is as if the impeachment trial has lost its “charm” and can no longer hold the people’s attention until the very end.
The “kilig factor” is gone as the prosecution struggles to sustain the momentum.
RIDICULOUS TO THE MAX
In an effort to “make a splash,” the senator-judges are once again debating the threshold required to convict the sitting Vice President.
At the start of the Senate impeachment trial, presiding senator-judge Chiz Escudero clearly stated that the threshold to convict VP Duterte is 16 votes, or two-thirds of the country’s 24 senators.
Escudero anchored his legal position on what the 1987 Philippine Constitution states, loud and clear, under Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 6. It says: “No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.”
Question: Why do some senator-judges still want to venture into lowering the threshold needed to convict VP Duterte? Aren’t they aware of the power of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land? Ridiculous to the max!
Yes, Sen. Bato Dela Rosa is still in hiding. Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta are in jail. Sen. Loren Legarda is now abroad, reportedly out of fear of being arrested over the alleged solar mess involving her son, Batangas 1st District congressman Leandro Leviste. Who’s next?
Will it be Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano over the 2019 Southeast Asian Games cauldron controversy?
Or will it be Sen. Robin Padilla for allegedly being behind Senator Bato’s escape from the Senate standoff on May 14?
Yes, these are real and factual circumstances, but none of these senators is dead or has officially resigned. So, what’s the problem with the two-thirds threshold?
‘BE PERSECUTED’
Well, if some senators really want to bend the law — or any provision of the Constitution — then it becomes glaring that what is happening in the Senate is a moment of so-called “political lip-sync.” Any senator perceived as unlikely to vote for the conviction of VP Duterte appears destined to “be persecuted.”
If what happened to Estrada and Marcoleta also happens to Cayetano, Legarda and Padilla, then how many senators will be left amid the impeachment trial?
Twenty-four minus Dela Rosa, Estrada, Marcoleta, Cayetano, Legarda and Padilla equals 18.
Two-thirds of 18 is 12.
So, with Senate President Win Gatchalian and senators Raffy and Erwin Tulfo, Tito Sotto, Ping Lacson, Risa Hontiveros, Kiko Pangilinan, JV Ejercito, Migz Zubiri, Joel Villanueva, Lito Lapid and Bam Aquino, does that mean bingo?
I don’t think so. I stand to be corrected, but the 1987 Constitution will still prevail over the impeachment threshold issue.
‘AMICI CURIAE’
Anyway, it is worth noting that the Senate has invited retired Supreme Court justices to serve as its amici curiae — friends of the court — and share their legal insights regarding the threshold needed to convict the Vice President. They include retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno, retired Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, and retired Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr.
I don’t want to preempt their legal arguments. I think it is better to wait for them to present their respective positions.
As for the other “geniuses” vending their ideas and legal opinions on Facebook and other social media platforms, I think the public must now be wise and discerning. Facebook is not a playground for unvalidated personal-slash-legal perspectives.
To be sure, always refer to the Constitution, published Supreme Court jurisprudence, or the existing laws of the country.
BUT FIRST, EVIDENCE
Well, to be honest, I am a bit appalled by the threshold issue. When put into proper context, a Senate impeachment trial should focus on evidence, not political alignment. If the impeachment trial is merely a numbers game in which the side with the most allies wins, then why bother presenting and grilling witnesses? It seems like a waste of time. Or, to be exact, call it a futile legal exercise.
Hence, for the senator-judges, the best approach is to listen to the witnesses, scrutinize the evidence, and decide on the merits and facts rather than on what “The Boss” dictates.
If the evidence against the Vice President is weak or strong, then so be it. Let’s not force legally inapt arguments to fit a desired outcome. Instead, let the law and the evidence serve as the foundation of a fair and just judgment.
Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen once said: “When used properly, impeachment is a tool for accountability. When abused, it is a tool for political retribution. It is only by compliance with the constitutional process that the proper balance between accountability and the ability of the public officers covered by impeachment to discharge their responsibilities can be respected.”
Also, remember François-Marie Arouet, widely known as Voltaire, the famous 18th-century French Enlightenment writer, philosopher and historian, who is credited with saying: “It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one.”/PN
