Two feisty women

With President Duterte publicly declaring his vow to impeach Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, it’s just a matter of time before the heads of two of the country’s constitutional offices find themselves on trial in the Senate.

The House of Representatives’ committee on justice has pronounced the impeachment complaint filed against Sereno by lawyer Larry Gadon as sufficient in form and substance. The complaint is expected to get the required votes in the House that would automatically send it to the Senate for trial.

A similar fate awaits Morales. The President’s allies in the House have made no secret of their willingness to do his bidding after Morales gave her deputy the go-signal to look into the claim of Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV that the President and his family have unexplained bank deposits.

Sereno and Morales have turned down calls by the President’s supporters to resign their posts to avoid the “embarrassment” of an impeachment trial. They have described the accusations against them—for Sereno, corruption and violation of internal court rules, and for Morales, violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act and complicity in alleged destabilization acts against the administration—as baseless and invalid grounds for impeachment.

Judging from their personality and professional background, Sereno and Morales are expected to fight tooth and nail to disprove the charges against them. They consider the actions against them as threats to the independence of their offices.

The House prosecutors (and the private lawyers they may ask to assist them) are in for a good fight in the Senate impeachment trials. The two officials are not pushovers. They are seasoned in the law and trial practice.

Prior to her appointment as Ombudsman, Morales served in the judiciary for 38 years, nine of which were in the Supreme Court. Sereno has been a member of the high court since 2010 and its chief justice for the past five years.

Morales and Sereno would be fighting on two fronts: the Senate and the public. To the senators, they have to prove that the accusations against them are false, and that even if these are true, do not constitute sufficient grounds for their impeachment.

Outside of the Senate, aside from “proving their innocence,” they have to show the public that they are victims of political persecution, or are being kicked out of their offices due to their opposition to some of President Duterte’s policies.

The public’s perception of the proceedings against the two officials may influence the senators’ appreciation of the evidence presented at the trials and in deciding whether to acquit, censure, or convict them.

By making public his animus toward the two officials, President Duterte may have unwittingly painted himself in a corner. He has to make sure they are found guilty by the Senate, even by a slim margin; otherwise, he would lose face before his political supporters and, worse, the public.

The acquittal (or even just censure) of Morales or Sereno would make Mr. Duterte look like a political lame duck on just the second year of his term. Anything short of conviction would give the impression that his party’s control of the Senate is more apparent than real, and that when push comes to shove, the senators will vote according to their conscience and resist being dictated to by Malacañang.

The affirmative vote of 16 senators is required to convict the two officials. Except for five senators who are unabashed supporters of the President, there is no assurance that the magic number can be easily reached after the impeachment trials.

The fact that the majority of the senators harbor political aspirations that go beyond Mr. Duterte’s term may spell a lot of difference in the outcome of the trials.

The two feisty women may prove to be hard nuts to crack.

* * *

Raul J. Palabrica ([email protected]) writes a weekly column in the Business section of the Inquirer.