Bautista’s dilemma: Quit or fight?

Until his wife Patricia accused him of unexplained wealth, Commission on Elections Chair Andres Bautista seemed destined for a bright future in the government.

Barring any controversy that may mar his stint as poll chief, he had a clear path to follow the footsteps of former Comelec chair Hilario Davide Jr. who was later appointed to the Supreme Court and became its chief justice.

Bautista has the gravitas to be a member of the highest court of the land. He graduated at the top of his law class, practiced law extensively in the Philippines and the United States, held an executive position in a multinational company, and headed the Presidential Commission on Good Government.

Regardless of the final outcome of his spat with his wife, her accusations are expected to resurface if he aspires for or is considered for appointment to another government post.

For now, the exchange of words between Bautista and his wife is a case of “he said, she said.” Both sides hold documents that appear to support their accusations against each other.

By filing criminal cases in court against his wife, Bautista put her on the defensive as she would be obliged to substantiate her allegations against him in accordance with the strict rules of evidence.

Patricia has the burden of proof to show that the bank accounts and properties she mentioned in her sworn statement are owned by Bautista and that he did not disclose them in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth.

If she is unable to substantiate her claim against Bautista, she could be held personally liable for her action. She cannot point to her lawyers and say she acted upon their instructions or advice. A lawyer’s mistake is attributable to his or her client.

An impeachment complaint for betrayal of the public trust was filed last Wednesday against Bautista at the House of Representatives by a former congressman and endorsed by three incumbent members of the chamber. Bautista will have to decide whether to oppose it to clear his name, or resign as Comelec chair to end the proceedings.

Judging from the House members’ record on impeachment complaints against officials who are not in the good graces of the administration in power, Bautista’s impeachment is a foregone conclusion even if he is able to prove that he has done nothing wrong.

He may have a fighting chance in the Senate if the complaint goes to trial, unless Malacañang takes an active hand in his removal, as what happened in the case of then Chief Justice Renato Corona, who was found guilty of unexplained wealth.

The impeachment proceedings would be physically and emotionally exhausting for Bautista and his children. He may have to go on leave as Comelec chair to prepare for his defense. His children, for whom he has repeatedly expressed concern, could be psychologically traumatized by the public exposure of the “deficiencies” of their parents’ personal lives and marital relationship. This early, according to Bautista, the children are showing signs of emotional distress.

If by some quirk of fate Bautista is acquitted by the Senate, it would be sweet vindication for him; it would enhance his standing in the public eye. That would be the perfect recipe for a political career or appointment to the Supreme Court.

But to spare his children from the stress of acrimonious impeachment proceedings, he may choose to throw in the towel and resign his post. That action, however, may give the impression to the public that he is guilty of the acts imputed to him by his wife.

Worse, it may mean the end of any aspiration to serve in other capacities in the government. But the trade-off for that move is a quiet and less stressful life for him and his children. Besides, his return to private life would not be discomforting because he is financially stable and already made, so to speak.

Bautista’s dilemma boils down to a choice between family and professional career.

Raul J. Palabrica (rpalabrica@inquirer. com.ph) writes a weekly column in the Business section of the Inquirer.