Chief Justice Renato Corona has made it fairly obvious that he will not oblige his enemies by going quietly. Since his first surly speech before his supporters at the Supreme Court compound before his impeachment trial began, he has displayed a startling inelegance that, while not a high crime, is unbecoming a member of the Supreme Court, much less the top magistrate of the land. The language, the belligerent pose, suggests that he has lost grasp of the loftiness of the post he holds and the deportment attendant to it.
President Aquino is seen to be guilty of the same unbecoming behavior and, as Corona’s defense lawyers and other parties are saying, of “prejudging” the impeachment case. But it bears pointing out that Mr. Aquino’s remarks in reference to the Chief Justice concern the case at bar and his avowed mission to push his agenda of reform. He has declared without blinking that the acquittal of Corona will be a major stumbling block to the government of accountability that he intends to put in place. He has said it time and again in varying ways, at various occasions, the most recent to an audience of young people, a representation of the hope of the motherland. The attentive observer would pronounce his behavior highly impolitic, but hardly dishonorable.
But the Chief Justice chooses to defend himself in a strange manner, and it’s bad strategy. Whoever is advising him to take a “gangsta” stance, so to speak, is serving him badly and those who love him should help him come to that conclusion. If anyone must shoot one’s mouth off—like, say, announcing a purported attempt by Malacañang to bribe the senator-judges to the tune of P100 million each, and making the accusation while caparisoned in red, effectively declaring war—let it be his defense lawyers; after all, they are paid to do so. (On the other hand, Corona himself and the members of his team have piously claimed that the defense is rendering service pro bono. This is more than bad strategy. As has been pointed out, correctly, by the likes of Rene Saguisag, such a cozy arrangement constitutes a conflict of interest that ought to be looked into quite seriously.)
It does not help Corona’s cause that he is accusing President Aquino of being psychologically incapable to lead the nation. This tack, part of the dirty tricks employed during the 2010 election campaign and actually a common tactic used against strong presidential candidates, including the redoubtable Miriam Defensor-Santiago in 1992, was sufficiently disproven. Why is the Chief Justice harping on it like some black prop operative mindful of its chismis quality that goes well with the heckling gallery? When, with the string of academic degrees attached to his name, dissertation or no dissertation, he should be turning his nose up at this pedestrian mode of attack? His point apparently being that criticism of him can only be the product of an unsound mind? As though the properties undeclared or undervalued in his sworn statements of assets, liabilities and net worth were but the babblings of an idiot signifying nothing?
No, the Chief Justice is not benefited by this plan of action, and it’s interesting that his team of de campanilla barristers is not advising him to abandon it altogether. (Likewise of interest are the demonstrations of support for him, the most recent of which puzzled police authorities in that thousands massed at the rally site as though by serendipity, without a cohesive organizing force yet with similarly crafted placards, rather like a production number.) But of course it would be naïve to think that the defense will consider pulling its punches as though in deference to a gentlemanly sport. Its decision to seek recourse in Corona’s home base, even after the impeachment court has convened, with the petition that two justices he deems hostile to him be barred from participation in the deliberations, indicates its game plan—and the Senate that is constitutionally empowered to try any and all impeachment cases is amply warned.
Warned as well is the public that is looking to the impeachment process for lessons in transparency and truth-seeking, the perils of legalities as these concern a powerful official in the dock, the thorny, tortuous road of justice, and even, as shown by the prosecution’s callow performance, the necessity of being as sure-footed on both the brightly lit avenues and dark alleys of the law as one’s opponent.
Look at the forest beyond the trees.