Back to basics
The defense wants Franklin Drilon inhibited from questioning witnesses. The reason for this, they say, is that he has shown partiality to the prosecution. He did this apparently on two occasions last week. The first when he coaxed the Supreme Court clerk of court, Enriqueta Esguerra-Vidal, to admit she had with her Renato Corona’s SALNs, and the second when he made Taguig City register of deeds Randy Rutaquio testify that Corona acted as “attorney in fact” for his daughter in the sale of a property on Oct. 21, 2008.
The defense knows, of course, it won’t succeed. At the very least because the technicality they are raising can always be met by the technicality that the senator-judges are not bound by strict rules of court. So we know that the defense is just playing up to the gallery, the wider one, which is the public watching the trial on TV. They want to give the impression that Corona is being ganged upon. It won’t really get very far.
For the public, the question is really simple: Did Drilon obstruct the truth or allow it to come out in his questioning? And the answer is equally simple. Corona himself has been telling the world he has nothing to hide. If so, why shouldn’t his SALN be made known to the public? If so, why shouldn’t his role in transactions on behalf of his family be made known to the public? Drilon can always argue that he is a lawyer and his lawyer’s instincts, or curiosity, got the better of him.
In the end, which will the public really mind, questioning that reveals the truth or legal technicalities that hide it?
I agree that to the extent possible, the senator-lawyers should refrain from aggressive or brazen displays of partisanship. I applaud in that respect the fact that Drilon, Francis Pangilinan, Ralph Recto and Teofisto Guingona III, all Liberal Party members, did not attend the LP anniversary last Friday to avoid controversy. It does help to make those gestures. But whether they do so or not, one thing remains clear about the impeachment court: Bidding the senators to not look at the trial as a political exercise, bidding the senators to not harbor biases, partisanships and interests, bidding the senators to not be influenced by public opinion—that is bidding the waves hold still.
If those premises were hard and fast, then we wouldn’t be having this trial at all. In any trial, the first thing you do is to inhibit a judge who has vested interest in a case. That is common sense. However the judge says he will strive to be objective, you cannot expect him to be so if a defendant is a relative or a friend. Far more fundamentally, in any trial, the first thing you do is to inhibit anyone who is not a judge from judging it. You will certainly not allow any layman to stand in for a judge on the ground that he is perfectly capable of weighing things on the basis of argument and evidence.
An impeachment trial violates these things from the very start. It is being judged by people who are not judges but laymen who will weigh innocence or guilt on the basis of argument and evidence. More to the point, it is being judged by senators who have vested interests in their political parties and/or patrons, whose very profession compels them to be highly sensitive to, if not decisively influenced by, public opinion, who have to face the voters at the end of the day. In an ordinary trial, they would be the least qualified judges of all. Which only shows that this is no ordinary trial.
This is a trial in fact where the only rules you can apply are not the rules of court but the rules of reason. The only question is whether the interrogation aids the truth or impairs it, whether the arguments aid the truth or impair it, whether the conduct of the senator-judges aids the truth or impairs it.
Mixing politics and law is not naturally a bad pass. Indeed, in this country, it can be good for both of them. For far too long has law meant an arcane subject, accessible only to a priesthood dedicated to it, who are the lawyers. For far too long has politics meant a privileged domain, to be left only to club members, who are the politicians. What this has done is to alienate law completely from justice, right and wrong has nothing to do with it. What this has done is to alienate politics completely from the common good, public welfare has nothing to do with it. What this has done is to reduce both law and politics to purely private interest.
Forcing both law and politics to submit to the rules of reason opens windows to rooms full of stale air. Erap’s impeachment trial inspired the public to talk like lawyers and the youth to aspire to become lawyers again. That wasn’t because the court became relentlessly legalistic, or indeed because the senator-judges overcame their biases and became paragons of objectivity. That was because for the first time in a long time, the court showed the public how the law at its best, when freed from chapter and verse, can be used to attain truth and justice. Or at least to quest for them.
Who knows? Maybe this time around, the impeachment trial will go farther. Maybe it won’t just do that for law, maybe it will do that for politics too. Maybe it will inspire the public to talk like politicians and the youth to aspire to become politicians themselves. That won’t be so because the defense will keep insisting the senator-judges leave politics out of the trial, or indeed because the senator-judges will be able to completely transcend their biases and partisanships. That will be so because for the first time in a long time, the court will show the public how politics at its best, when freed from narrow self-interest, can be used to make the country better. Or at least to quest for it.
You can’t get more basic than that.
