Thoughts on the impeachment
If I haven’t written anything yet about the ongoing impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, it isn’t for lack of interest. In fact, I follow the TV coverage religiously, and track its progress by radio when I’m on the road.
The trouble is, however much I keep my eyes and ears glued to the proceedings, much of what’s said tends to rush by above my head. Hindi ko na ma-reach. Never mind the preponderance of Latin terms and verbose flourishes. When the trial is over, and the defense and prosecution hold their respective press conferences, I find myself vacillating from one side to the other. With both panels claiming victory or at least scoring a legal point, I often wonder if it’s possible for the opposing sides to both be right, or to have won the day.
And then there are the numerous legal experts who sit on the panels of TV stations. They’re there to clarify the proceedings, to explain in layman’s terms what just went on in the Senate floor. But often, the experts tend to becloud the proceedings with their own interpretations. I often feel like all the lawyers involved, the defense and prosecution, the spokespersons, the legal experts and many of the senators who are themselves lawyers, are speaking in a code designed to keep out the rest of us non-lawyers.
This is why I’m thankful for the participation of senators like Lito Lapid (yes, Lapid) and Ping Lacson, who, not being lawyers, end up asking the sort of questions that occur to ordinary viewers but which we keep to ourselves for fear of being seen as stupid. Indeed, what is the difference between a “cash advance” and a “loan”? And when is one act a crime and another legitimate practice?
I’ve had time to think about the trial and there are some questions and points I’d like to raise, if only in hopes of helping me understand better what’s going on, and help readers as well.
* * *
A witness for Megaworld Corp., from which the Coronas are alleged to have purchased condominium units in swanky Bonifacio Global City, has testified that the family of the Chief Justice received hefty discounts on the purchase price of their units. The witness said this was because the Coronas paid in full much sooner than expected, and because a typhoon had wreaked damage on the unfinished unit.
When the prosecution hinted that Megaworld may have extended the discounts in exchange for consideration regarding cases then pending before the Supreme Court, the witness pointed out that in fact his firm had lost two cases at the level of the high tribunal.
But that doesn’t mean no favors were granted. A company facing a suit before the Supreme Court may seek insurance for a favorable ruling by courting members of the tribunal. And if the company loses the case, it may write off the expense of the “courtship” to public relations, to buying goodwill for future cases. And perhaps, to learning a lesson about counting your chickens before your eggs hatch.
* * *
Early on in the process, Corona himself warned that the House and the Senate were risking a “constitutional crisis” by putting the legislature and the judiciary on a collision course. But impeachment is itself a constitutional creation. If the framers of the Constitution – and the people who ratified it – thought the impeachment and trial of an official like the Chief Justice would weaken the framework of our government, then they would surely have enshrined a different process for ousting a non-elected senior official. And this may be why the Supreme Court, with the exception of the Chief Justice, sat back and allowed the Senate trial to proceed.
If anything, it seems to be Corona, and his lawyers, who are apparently intent on making the two co-equal branches of government clash head-on. Now they have asked the high tribunal to move its ass and step into the fray, first by ruling on the right of the prosecution to open Corona’s dollar deposits to scrutiny; and then to putting a stop to the entire impeachment proceedings.
In my view, it’s unfortunate that the Supreme Court agreed to hear (with unseemly alacrity) the issue of opening Corona’s dollar deposits, when a clear exemption allowed by law is a court order allowing the lifting of the bank secrecy rule. Does not the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, have the right to issue such an order?
As for the petition to stop the proceedings completely, I hope wiser and cooler heads among the justices prevail. Impeachment is a legal and constitutional procedure put in place to make accountable even the highest officials of the land. For the Supreme Court to step into the fray now is precisely to weaken the delicate balance of power envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
* * *
We must also keep in mind that in the past few weeks, we have been “treated” only to the prosecution’s side of the story. We don’t know exactly how much longer it may take for the prosecutors and their private lawyers to wind up their presentation, but the senator-judges – and the viewing public – face many more months of a contentious and complicated trial.
Once the prosecution winds up its case, it’s the turn of the defense, and we can expect the same degree of vigilance and barrage of non-stop objections from the prosecution, although I can’t imagine the soft-spoken Rep. Niel Tupas pouncing on defense lawyers with the same vehemence as lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas.
I must also express my marvel at the capacity of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile to follow the proceedings and issue rulings to break any impasse. The other senators (and many viewers and listeners) may space out and tune out any part of a testimony, but Enrile is expected to be on his toes all the time. How he does it is beyond me.
