THE MOCKERY OF THE IMPEACHMENT

If I were to top the bar exam next year, would anyone of you here go to the court, file a criminal case, a

TRO, a certiorari or what have you to legally stop an honor that you feel doesn’t befit me?

Ladies and gentlemen, a similar situation that has become a worldwide sensation is happening right in

our midst. The broil over the impeachment court subpoenas is no simple black and white battle of the

forces of the anti-Corona versus the pro-Corona camp where each side single-mindedly throws

everything and anything foul just to exact vengeance against each other.

How we love to watch the stance of the partisan who wants the quick score for his client but, alas, there

is the Senate that sits as judge.

Yes, there are rules of evidence which flagrantly are not followed. Rules of evidence are not just about

finding the truth; they actually balance the pursuit of the truth against other values such as the seal of

confession between a confessor and a penitent in the Catholic Church. The confessor cannot just be

made to stand as witness against the penitent who goes for his counsel. Likewise, a bank manager

shouldn’t be made a witness against a depositor supposedly due to the strict observance of the bank

secrecy law.

And more! We still have to consider what outweighs what. To say that the truth must be out whatever

the cost may be, is courting more harm than good. In traditional law, we call this a pre-commitment, so

that in the presence of heavy pressures we should not lose sight of larger principles.

1
Everybody should salute the Senate on this point. Remember day 1 of the trial, the Senate denied the

prosecution’s motion to compel the Chief Justice and his family to testify. The CJ was protected by his

constitutional right against self incrimination. The Senate performed a delicate balancing-act. In its

ruling the Senate carefully said it wouldn’t allow a fishing expedition and would subpoena only those

documents related to the SALNs, the core of the second article of impeachment.

Throughout the four days of trial the only explosive testimony actually relevant to article 2 in the

impeachment complaint was that the CJ closed 3 bank accounts on the day he was impeached. The rest

were just the boring nitty- gritty of authenticating documents which could have been easily done in a

pre-trial.

The other revelation that infuriated the Senate was over a leaked document. One, it turns out to be

phony. Two, there was no” small woman”. And three, one congressman also got a copy.

On the night of February 12, CJ Renato Corona’s defense lawyers called a press conference with an

expose; Malacanang had supposedly dangled one hundred million pesos before each senator in

exchange for their votes.

The contending parties had been gearing for battle since February 9 when the SC issued a TRO blocking

the Senate’s subpoena on Corona’s dollar accounts. The prosecution called it a “hostage taking”. The

Senate vote of 13 against 10 to respect the TRO on the dollar accounts momentarily settled the matter.

But the Senate stood firm that the high court could not go further to stop the trial pursuant to its “sole

power” to try and decide all cases of impeachment. The high court after issuing a carefully nuanced

2
reply on Corona’s dollar accounts now seems emboldened by the senate’s deference and is poised to be

fiery on the remaining impeachment articles.

After some two weeks of fire and fury at the impeachment trial, these are the things that have

coalesced in the public mind as regards the two opposing platoons of legal minds; the prosecution and

the defense panels.

The first, the prosecution is said to be a bunch of inept callow-cubs as personified by the often tongue

tied Iloilo Representative Neil Tupas, Jr. And the other group, the defense, a brilliant team of veteran

counsels led by the quick-witted lion, the former Supreme Court justice, Serafin Cuevas.

It’s simply embarrassing to witness an often grilled prosecution from the beginning due to their

unexpected manifestation of unpreparedness which caused the adjournment of the trial on the second

day. The prosecution has often appeared as clumsy amateurs with their vague seemingly ad hoc

presentation of their case.

In contrast, Cuevas’ unflappable demeanor, his vast command of the law and the legal system and the

tough but always courteous and always crystalline way he defends the interest of his prized client, have

turned many Corona detractors into grudging admirers whose respect unexpectedly spilled over to

Cuevas equally articulate cohorts in the defense table.

Then there is this issue of bank fake documents raised by the prosecution! What a mockery of the kind

of legal minds our legislative people show posing as the prosecution of this impeachment trial. This is

unforgivable!

3
And worst we have the most embarrassing word war not from among the fanatic supporters but for

goodness sake, a word war between the President and the Chief Justice themselves. How far and how

long will they make the affairs of this country a comedy of errors in the international arena?

We have in our country many intellectual clowns who are holding high positions, the few privileged elite

whom the people have entrusted to gear them to the right direction.

The way things are happening, P-noy’s game plan is half-baked from the very start. If he was really that

intent in cleaning corruption P-noy would not have waited for almost 18 months to start the process.

Nor,having decided to start it, he should have not allowed his minions in Congress to pass such a flawed,

practically baseless set of impeachment charges without even the benefit of discussion.

Now it’s getting clear even to the diehard- loyalists of P-noy, the impeachment trial of Corona seems

less likely to have anything to do with the desire to clean up corruption than it has with the desire to

wreak vengeance.

What is more un-called for and very unbecoming of the President is his frequent barking of harsh words

against the CJ in public which practically incites the people to take matters in their own hands and

unconsciously, in a worldwide TV coverage, he shows a dismal ignorance about how the will of the

people be served.

This is a ticklish question.Doesn’t the President realize that he is one of the few as are all legislators and

local executives chosen by the people precisely to carry out their will?

4
Or does he want every decision to be subject to ratification by the people? Ridiculous, right? Using the

people to serve a personal vendetta is a dangerous tool and it can boomerang on the persons using it.

And what if this happens very soon?

Is the supremacy of the constitution ever considered by these two contending parties? The conviction or

the acquittal lies in the hands of the sitting judge senators. And we all know that the conviction or the

acquittal is just a number game.

Whoever gets the highest votes is of course the winner. Certainly, a very much political game. To the

winner he will claim due process is served and to the loser he will cry there’s injustice- the supremacy of

the constitution is not served.

Lastly, let me ask this, is supremacy of the constitution nothing but a myth of pure semantics designed

to mislead the greater majority of the Filipino people? If it is, I wouldn’t doubt casting a harsh judgment

on the real villains.

And, never mind my dream to top the bar next year.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you and good morning.