The Senate on Trial
After hearing from Amici Curiae in the Senate Impeachment Court, my first reaction was, bakit puro lalaki? Dahil walang former Chief Justice na babae? Pero Associate Justice din lang yung isa, kahit pa kasali siya sa nag-frame ng 1987 Constitution. Wala bang former AJ na babae na qualified to weigh in, just in case may naiibang pananaw o angle o retorika?
Not that the men disappointed. Adequately explained naman ang two sides of the argument: yung 16 as immutable or fixed threshold (AJ Adolf Azcuna) VS. yung adjustable 2/3 of the members in attendance (CJs Hilario Davide, Artemio Panganiban, Reynato Puno). Ibig sabihin: 16 votes needed to impeach — kung 2/3 of 24 senators; 14 votes needed — kung 2/3 of 20, absent Estrada and Marcoleta, Bato and Loren).
BALL’S IN YOUR COURT, SENATE….
My major major take-away is that the ex-CJ Supremes were unanimous on: the Senate Court’s “sole” power to interpret and to promulgate rules relating to the Impeachment. Ibig sabihin, the Senators will have to resolve the issues by their collegial lonesomes. Hindi maaasahan, as of the moment, ang Supreme Court to decide the matter for them. Unless, of course, the Supremes of today deem otherwise?
Siyempre the DDS bloc (7 of 11 show up intermittently) deeply wish to abide by the fixed 16 votes (kunwari everybody present) — yan daw ang ibig sabihin ng Constitution sa “2/3 of all the members,” na pinanindigan pa ni Justice Azcuna. Pahihirapan ang current Majority of 13 to come up with 3 more votes.
At siyempre the DDS bloc want Estrada and Marcoleta to be allowed to attend the hearings either electronically or in person, and supplied with copies of transcripts atbp. para makaboto din sila. Ang tanong, para que? For what? For the numbers man lang, para madagdagan ang bilang nila, in case mabawasan pa dahil BAKA may makasuhan at makulong pang iba?
WHAT IF WE RAISE THE BAR
What kind of Senate is this na ang daming miyembro na may kaso, o may nagbabadyang kaso, for plunder atbp. What if, sa 2028, i-ban ng Comelec from running for election anyone with a pending corruption case? Itigil na yang innocent-until-proven-guilty eklat. Lalo pa kung flood-control-scam related ang kaso — itrato silang guilty-until-proven-innocent, and, therefore, not qualified to run for public office or deserving of public trust until declared innocent by the courts.
GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT
Believe it or not, the legal maxim “innocent until proven guilty” is based on the long questioned, always challenged, premise that humans are inherently good — isinilang tayo na mabait — therefore daw, if accused of wrongdoing, it is more likely that you are innocent rather than guilty. Pero hindi ba kabaligtaran iyan ng Catholic premise of “original sin” na ating kinagisnan kinalakhan at pinaniniwalaan, and which is why mayroong Baptism, Confession, and Communion, even Extreme Unction, ang Simbahan as cleansing Sacraments?
Maybe the two most famous opposing views on this debate are those of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Hobbes describes humans as ‘nasty’ and ‘brutish’, needing society and rules to reign in their instincts in order to thrive; later Rousseau openly criticised him, arguing instead that man would be gentle and pure without the corruption of greed and inequality caused by the class system imposed by our society. https://www.bbcearth.com/
Let the burden be on the accused senators and congressmen — first come first served — to prove that they’re innocent, and if they cannot, likely because their SALNs and bank accounts and maybe new whistleblowers say otherwise, then ipagkukulong sila. No ifs or buts, no house or hospital arrests, No Mercy.
FOR NOW, LOOKING FORWARD TO ORAL ARGUMENTS
Sept 23 the Court is set to hear oral arguments from the prosecution and defense on the threshold question, after which the Senators will decide, although Sen Ping is asking to sleep on it before voting. Nang mapag-isipan nang mabuti. Oo nga naman. It will be quite a show.