remembering Edsa Dos & Tres #CJ impeachment (updated)

not surprisingly, no one cares to remember Edsa Dos, obviously because installing gloria macapagal arroyo turned out to be a grievous mistake, like a giant 10-year step backward.  what if, instead of ousting estrada, we had allowed the impeachment trial of erap to take its course.

if he had been convicted, then gloria would have assumed power legally and constitutionally and would not have owed her position to the hilario davide supreme court that happily legitimized the unconstitutional, and to the angelo reyes military that readily changed sides after some smart wheeling and dealing behind the scenes.  then, maybe arroyo’s 9-, almost 10-year, rule would have turned out differently.  and maybe she would not have been so heavyhanded in dealing with estrada, and Edsa Tres — another major major event that we like to forget — would not have happened.

if he had been acquitted, then what if we had gone to edsa to demand better governance, maybe to insist that gloria accept estrada’s invitation to head the Economic Coordinating Council, or even to take up estrada’s offer of snap elections.  then maybe we would not be where we are now — trying to convict an impeached chief justice who was appointed by gloria and therefore not to be trusted to be impartial when her electoral sabotage case, allegedly weak, comes up before the supreme court.  meanwhile the hacienda luisita ruling is up for “clarification and reconsideration” by the supreme court and the cojuangcos are demanding that the impeached chief justice inhibit himself, hay naku.

the impeachment trial now ongoing reminds too much of erap’s impeachment trial and Edsa Dos.  let it remind too, please, of Edsa Tres, which was not all hakot.  what offends me most is when pundits insist that it’s more a political than a judicial proceeding, meaning that technicalities that work in favor of the defense should be set aside because it is not in the public interest.  this is based, i suppose, on the 70%+ approval rating of the prez, these 70%+ being presumed to be supportive of his campaign to kick out corona and convict gma in line with “daang matuwid”.

so okay, meron ding mass base ang presidente, but i would think that this mass base is a volatile fluid force.  media loves to point out that the masses, based on random on-the-street in-the-palengke interviews, don’t even know who corona is, but hey, they are paying attention to the impeachment proceedings which are not only televised, but covered live on radio and played on buses and jeepneys, and there’s such a thing as a learning curve.  soon they might know enough to make up their own minds, lalo na’t hindi naman sila nagbabasa ng pro-palace spins ng compromised media diyan, mainstream and online.

so ingat ingat lang, senator-jurors who are so early in the game showing your biases and even helping out the surprisingly inept prosecution lawyers (who i guess were more focused on harassing corona into resigning than preparing for trial), like drilon has been doing.  baka sabihin ng masa inaapi si corona, hala!  ingat din, senator-jurors like trillanes who has already said he would be guided by public sentiment.  how to measure public sentiment across classes, short of a referendum?  twould be wiser, and more honourable, to be guided by the evidence, after hearing both the prosecution AND the defense.

Comments

  1. GabbyD

    i agree w/ much of this, but as i recall, the non-opening of the envelope that prompted EDSA 2 was a technical legal issue that the senators resolved via voting.

    isnt the lesson of that trial is that if there is any question as to legality, we should err towards knowing more/opening the envelope?

    January 21, 2012 at 1:47 am
    Reply
  4. angela

    haha baycas. i deleted the comment asking gabbyd to put up his own blog and stop hijacking mine, yes, but only for gabbyd’s sake; it doesn’t mean i take it back. i can put it back if you like. gabbyd, malinaw ang topic ng post. suddenly you make a comment on something i posted on facebook, na napaka-tangential, so i deleted it. after working so hard on a post, my heart sinks when i see your “name”. id rather have no comments than have yours.

    like my webmaster says, which expresses exactly how i feel:

    “Here’s the thing with GabbyD, he’s extremely annoying. His comments tend towards the inane and he can take the wind out of your sails by commenting almost immediately after you publish your post. I’m a reader nga lang and I feel it. Pours cold water after you fire someone up with your writing. Kakainis.

    “It’s also so irritating how he hijacks posts by either using someone else’s blog as a soapbox for his own opinions — which he has the advantage of being able to articulate in a bite-sized comment since your post has done they heavy lifting of background — or by starting off with his “I don’t understand…”, “I don’t get it…”, “Please explain…”… which pisses me off in particular for being so fucking entitled. Like we owe him an explanation for anything. Never mind that it weakens your post immediately dahil as his comment becomes part of your post, readers might come to question your clarity and their understanding. And then, of course when people make him patol, it becomes about his comment na more than whatever was in your post.”

    there’s more, maybe i’ll post it all as an entry on trolls one of these days.

    January 22, 2012 at 12:03 pm
    Reply
    • Orlando R

      just a link angela. it describes the blog troll.

      http://www.unix-girl.com/blog/archives/2004/10/the_common_blog.html

      but to go off-topic somewhat, there’s also (so i think) a species whose members get vexed when comments don’t fit their ‘religion’ to the point that they would ridicule a specific commenter. i suppose they out themselves as bigots. by now my ‘old’ question then re-emerges: which is the worse – the bigot or the troll? perhaps they’re essentially the same. perhaps not.

      as to the topic of your post, i believe the problem is that there is no court higher than the senate as tribunal, unless the sc were to hold that it is. this could open a constitutional can of worms – what would happen if the senate convicts but the sc overturns?

      January 22, 2012 at 6:46 pm
      Reply
      • baycas

        what would happen if the senate convicts but the sc overturns

        Francisco vs. HOR in 2003 exemplified how the Constitution compulsorily limits the legislative power to impeach (the impeachable officers, the impeachable offenses, the process to be followed, the manner of filing, the required vote to impeach and the one-year bar). However, I believe the SC then carefully dissociated itself in tackling whether the offenses are valid impeachable offenses or not as this is a political issue basically left to the sound discretion of the legislators.

        Perhaps, the SC won’t wait for the Senate final disposition of the Corona impeachment case before it “intervenes”. To do such a thing as overturning a conviction may be likened to what happened in South Korea:

        Law, Politics, and Impeachment:
        The Impeachment of Roh Moo-hyun from a Comparative Constitutional Perspective

        What will ensue here in PHL is probably…unimaginable???

        January 23, 2012 at 4:29 am
        Reply
  5. brianitus

    Hi! First time reader here. I forgot how I got here, but I like what I’ve read so far.

    EDSA 2 was a convenient option in 2001. Siguro naman natuto na mga tao ngayon na wag padalos dalos. Isa na ‘ko dun.

    “what offends me most is when pundits insist that it’s more a political than a judicial proceeding, meaning that technicalities that work in favor of the defense should be set aside because it is not in the public interest. ”

    My question always has been: Why have the impeachment in the first place if all considerations are political? If the CJ wins legally, he’ll lose politically? Did I understand it correctly? Eh bakit pa nagkaroon ng proseso kung brasuhin lang din pala?

    Nakakatawa rin yung umaangal sa depensa ni Corona. Eh bakit ‘di nila i-angal na galingan ng prosecution? Kulang na lang sabihin kay Corona na wag nya ipagtanggol sarili nya. Like, WTF?

    January 22, 2012 at 1:15 pm
    Reply
    • angela

      brianitus, i agree, sobrang dejado si corona dito. sabi nga ni winnie monsod:

      “There are two trials going on at the same time—the trial being conducted on the Senate floor as a courtroom, and the trial by publicity that is still being conducted outside that courtroom—where the entire machinery of the Executive, not just the House of Representatives through their “spokesmen for the prosecution panel,” has been focused on demonizing Corona. The reader will remember that Corona has been the target of my criticisms—but just because I think he does not deserve to be Chief Justice does not mean that I am willing to sit by while his opponents play dirty in trying to oust him from office.” http://opinion.inquirer.net/21525/do-it-the-right-way

      January 22, 2012 at 2:19 pm
      Reply
          • brianitus

            Either the opposition does that or this admin shapes up. Kahit alin dun okay na.

            Hmm, since you mentioned approval ratings na, napansin mo na same banana different peel lang din? Nung kay GMA puro GDP numbers. Ngayon naman kay PNoy, puro survey at approval ratings ang laging bandera. Sana magkaroon ng presidenteng sabay ang press release.

            Anyway, makakagulo na ko ng thoughts. Thanks for exchanging ideas.

            Cheers!

            January 22, 2012 at 3:14 pm
      • baycas

        We ain’t seen nothin’ yet, Angela.

        I’m curious how the Supreme Court will unleash its inherent judicial power of review, even in impeachment (as can be read in Francisco vs. HOR http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/nov2003/gr_160261_2003.html ). Especially now that there are six petitions to stop the impeachment trial on account of grave abuse of discretion of Congress.

        Former CJ Artemio Panganiban acknowledges this “enormous” (my adjective) SC power as a duty (Please read his inquirer column today.). I’ve first read about this in Atty. Jose C. Sison’s December 23 Philstar article entitled “Better Alternative”.

        It may seem that the perceived Executive-Legislative conspiracy is winning big in the public arena but let’s wait and see how the Supreme Court will react by way of the stop-the-impeachment petitions. There is a chance that the SC will grant them if truly Art. XI, Sec. 3, Par. 4 was violated as determined by the SC, particularly in the definition of “verified complaint”.

        Unless, of course, the Supreme 14 will reverse the Francisco vs. HOR decision with its spawned “judicialization of the politically-natured impeachment process”.

        January 22, 2012 at 11:47 pm
        Reply
        • brianitus

          Hi, baycas.

          It is also possible for the Senate just to return the complaint to HoR because of the confusing Article 2, right? Imho, if all legal options are pushed, this impeachment might just collapse. If that happens, we’ll be in for a serious s#!t storm.

          January 23, 2012 at 11:22 am
          Reply
          • baycas

            The possibility was there at the start but the Senate Impeachment Court chose to accept the Articles of Impeachment as valid under the presumption of regularity (part of interparliamentary courtesy). The impeachment trial is already in full gear (kindly read Fr. Bernas’ column today entitled “Furor over the Corona SALNs) and there is no stopping it now…

            Unless, the SC steps in as part of its judicial review (when it determines grave abuse of discretion on the part of Congress).

            January 23, 2012 at 5:07 pm
          • baycas

            Considering impeachment is neither civil nor criminal.
            Appreciation of evidence must therefore be LIBERAL.

            There’s no life, liberty, or property at stake here.
            It’s just removal from office, that’s what’s clear!

            January 23, 2012 at 5:09 pm
  6. jojie

    methimks, the SC started this brasuhan by invoking the “the rule of law” as a matter of Constitutional prerogative rather than the morality of law just like they did with the abusive use of the TRO and non-disclosure in public their SALN. Kung baga sa basketball court, they can walk and dribble the ball as they like without being charged of lifting violations, so arbitrary since they are both the referee and the interpreter of the rules of the game. Since the impeachment court has a set of rules different from the civil and criminal court, technical strategies to delay or deviate from the extraction of truth must not be allowed in order to expedite the validity of the charge. I hope everyone will appreciate that this batch of senator-jurors are doing their job with credibility and independence of mind so wanting of the Chief Justice as part of the highest leadership of this land

    January 22, 2012 at 3:55 pm
    Reply
  8. jojie

    angie,
    Its really hard to determine who will decide according to their conscience (with divine guidance) and weigh evidence as to their degree of relevance to the interest of the majority as the source of power and not sole interest of power dispenser. But since this is a political case, it is predictable that some if not majority will go with the dictates of their political alliance.

    January 22, 2012 at 4:42 pm
    Reply
    • baycas

      Considering impeachment is neither civil nor criminal.
      Appreciation of evidence must therefore be LIBERAL.

      There’s no life, liberty, or property at stake here.
      It’s just removal from office, that’s what’s clear!

      —–

      what offends me most is when pundits insist that it’s more a political than a judicial proceeding, meaning that technicalities that work in favor of the defense should be set aside because it is not in the public interest.
      – Angela

      In light of your reference to Florin T. Hilbay’s commentary entitled “Judicialized Impeachment”, what’s now your view, Angela?

      —–

      The JUDICIALIZATION OF POLITICS, specifically IMPEACHMENT, as I’ve cited the Roh case above is in the context of Ran Hirschl’s “constitutionalization and the judicialization of mega-politics.”

      In the past two decades, Hirschl and others have noted, judicial bodies around the world have come to assume increasingly important roles in resolving some of the most fundamental political conflicts that countries face.

      Again, the link is here: http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=nyu_plltwp .

      UST LAW REVIEW, Vol. L, AY 2005–2006 has an article, “JUDICIAL REVIEW OF IMPEACHMENT: THE JUDICIALIZATION OF PHILIPPINE POLITICS” by FRANCO ARISTOTLE G. LARCINA, which is written in a comparative manner the same as Youngjae Lee’s work and likewise follow Hirschl’s Judicialization of Politics. It can be downloaded here:

      http://ustlawreview.com/pdf/vol.L/Articles/Judicial_Review_of_Impeachment.pdf

      Our Supreme Court must intervene when constitutionally-imposed limitation/s to the legislative power of impeachment is/are found to be breached. There are, I believe, six petitions facing the SC now. There are alleged irregularities in the present impeachment proceedings that are thought to be unconstitutional.

      Were the Articles of Impeachment (AOI) emanating from a VERIFIED COMPLAINT (VC) and/or RESOLUTION (R) made by the HOR? Was there grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Senate when it proceeded to try the Corona Impeachment Case without first considering if the AOI came from a constitutionally required VC and/or R?

      Let’s wait and see
      The move of the SC.

      January 23, 2012 at 4:48 pm
      Reply
    • baycas

      Considering impeachment is neither civil nor criminal.
      Appreciation of evidence must therefore be LIBERAL.

      There’s no life, liberty, or property at stake here.
      It’s just removal from office, that’s what’s clear!

      —–

      what offends me most is when pundits insist that it’s more a political than a judicial proceeding, meaning that technicalities that work in favor of the defense should be set aside because it is not in the public interest.
      – Angela

      In light of your reference to Florin T. Hilbay’s commentary entitled “Judicialized Impeachment”, what’s now your view, Angela?

      —–

      The JUDICIALIZATION OF POLITICS, specifically IMPEACHMENT, as I’ve cited the Roh case above is in the context of Ran Hirschl’s “constitutionalization and the judicialization of mega-politics.”

      In the past two decades, Hirschl and others have noted, judicial bodies around the world have come to assume increasingly important roles in resolving some of the most fundamental political conflicts that countries face.

      UST LAW REVIEW, Vol. L, AY 2005–2006 has an article, “JUDICIAL REVIEW OF IMPEACHMENT: THE JUDICIALIZATION OF PHILIPPINE POLITICS” by FRANCO ARISTOTLE G. LARCINA, which is written in a comparative manner the same as Youngjae Lee’s work and likewise follow Hirschl’s Judicialization of Politics.

      Our Supreme Court must intervene when constitutionally-imposed limitation/s to the legislative power of impeachment is/are found to be breached. There are, I believe, six petitions facing the SC now. There are alleged irregularities in the present impeachment proceedings that are thought to be unconstitutional.

      Were the Articles of Impeachment (AOI) emanating from a VERIFIED COMPLAINT (VC) and/or RESOLUTION (R) made by the HOR? Was there grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Senate when it proceeded to try the Corona Impeachment Case without first considering if the AOI came from a constitutionally required VC and/or R?

      Let’s wait and see
      The move of the SC.

      January 23, 2012 at 4:51 pm
      Reply
  12. baycas

    Angela,

    re hirschl’s: it’s like what panganiban said, no? interesting nga. i suppose we will see lines being drawn this week. i’d like to see the supreme court as a body stepping up to the plate actually but i’m not sure they’re up to it given the pro-palace media blitz.

    Yup.

    Last Tuesday, the SC gave 10 days for the HOR and the Senate to file their comments re: consolidated first 5 petitions. Without a TRO on the impeachment trial, “slow” natural SC process will take place.

    Of course, like former SolGen Chavez said a few days before the trial started, it’s really a battle of propaganda on both camps, pro- and anti-Corona.

    —–

    All three branches of government are created equal with coordinate functions.

    Just to continue with the comparison so as not to provide you with high hopes on the SC’s “intervention” of the Corona impeachment trial…

    Davide, still popular in 2003, was not impeached when the SC struck down the HOR’s Rules 16 and 17 as unconstitutional.
    Roh, still popular in 2004, was reinstated by the South Korean Constitutional Court.

    Among the limitations on the legislative impeachment power, only the validity of the impeachable offenses, I believe, is the one left to the SOUND discretion of the Legislature. This is political in nature and judicial review is off limits.

    All the rest of the limitations (the impeachable officers, the process to be followed, the manner of filing, the required vote to impeach and the one-year bar) may be subjected to judicialization.

    The SC, in HARMONY with the Executive and the Legislative branches, may eventually “conveniently” DENY the stop-the-impeachment petitions and just let the trial continue. This early, in his Inquirer column today, Fr. Bernas presages a turning down of the petitions:

    There are still pending in the Supreme Court petitions for a TRO to restrain the Senate from proceeding with the impeachment trial on the ground that the impeachment complaint filed by the House of Representatives is invalid. The petition is asking for an order which would place the Supreme Court in direct collision with the Senate because the Senate jury already decided last Monday that the complaint was valid. In my view this is a correct decision of the Senate. The core of the issue is whether at least one-third of the House verified their complaint. The record of the House says that every single one of the 188 complainants came before the secretary general of the House to verify their complaint. The Senate jury, at least out of inter-house courtesy, did not question the veracity of the House record. It would have been different if at least the Speaker of the House had denied its veracity. I strongly doubt that the Supreme Court, at least out of interdepartmental courtesy, will question the veracity of the House record—especially since the impeachment trial is already in full gear.

    The unpopularity of Corona may just be a “secret” side issue although obviously many will say that the SC bowed down to public sentiments and did not “withdraw” the ongoing trial…

    Mahirap, Angela, maraming sasakit ang puson…

    —–

    Btw, last week, news has it that:

    Senior Justice Antonio Carpio, Corona’s chief rival to the highest post in the judiciary in 2010, was tasked to pen the resolution.

    January 23, 2012 at 9:29 pm
    Reply
  14. baycas

    “We have each other, and we are our best gifts to each other.”
    – Mr. Renato Corona on Mrs. Cristina Corona

    What is at stake in the Corona impeachment trial is Judicial Independence, “a pre-requsite to the Rule of Law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial“.*

    Well, that is as far as Mr. Renato Corona is concerned. He thinks that if convicted, it will be the Death of Judicial Independence.

    But, how does Mr. Renato Corona regard Judicial Independence?

    In the discovery of Mr. Renato Corona’s SALN, which incidentally he did not publicly disclose as he was hiding behind an exemptive Supreme Court Resolution and which the defense will likewise use as evidence in the impeachment trial, we note that he declared that his wife, Ma. Cristina, was working in a GOCC under the Office of the President — a position in the Executive branch of government.

    This declaration was as early as 2007 when he was already an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court — a position in the Judicial branch.

    At that time, Mr. Renato Corona did not see a conflict of interest. He was perhaps thinking that it is not public knowledge anyway.

    However, in 2010, as he was being “groomed” for the highest post in the Judiciary, Mr. Renato Corona suddenly had the propriety to ask his wife to give up her Executive post.

    Of course, then, he was being challenged with the question of independence considering Mr. Renato Corona’s wife was already broadcast to have been repeatedly (persistently?) nominated by gloria macapagal-arroyo to her John Hay Management Corporation positions.

    Now, what about Mr. Renato Corona’s independence and propriety in the early years of his wife’s stint in an Executive post under the Office of the President?

    Was not the year 2007 already the Death of Judicial Independence for him???

    No less than the Supreme Court acknowledged this standard on Judicial Independence:

    “Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the Executive and Legislative branches of government, but must also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable observer.”

    The political questions exist: Will the much-publicized and embraced label “CoronArroyo” that had stuck Mr. Renato Corona’s name like glue pass muster as having NO APPEARANCE of Judicial Independence? Must he continue on the role of Chief Justice with public perception of being beholden to the one who wielded enormous Executive power in the past?

    Please remember that suspicion alone will already violate the Canons stipulated in The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. Much more if this is true as in the case of Mr. Renato Corona.

    —–
    *Canon 1, The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, 2004

    January 29, 2012 at 10:30 am
    Reply
  15. baycas

    GabbyD,

    The link points to a PDF. Part of the introduction states:

    The proposed draft was first submitted to the Philippine Supreme Court for further comments. On April 27, 2004, the draft code was promulgated by Administrative Matter Number 03-05-01-SC, published in the Manila Bulletin and Philippine Star on May 3, 2004, and given effect on June 1, 2004.

    This publication discusses and provides commentary and annotations of law to the new Philippine Code of Judicial Conduct, based upon the Bangalore principles and prior Philippine Codes. The new Code develops nuanced and often overlapping rules that are meant to be respected by judges in both their public and private lives. Its basic and guiding principle is that it is not enough that a judge possess competence in the law, he or she must also have moral integrity,* as magistrates are measured not only by their official acts, but also by their private morals, to the extent that these are externalized.**

    —–
    *Talens-Dabon vs. Arceo A.M. No. RTJ-96-1336, July 25 1996; Rodriguez vs. Bonifacio A.M. No. RTJ- 99-1510, November 6 2000
    **Junio vs. Rivera 225 SCRA 688 (1993)

    The Code (Administrative Matter Number 03-05-01-SC) may be used in administrative cases (judging the judges). It can be found in the Annex of the PDF.

    January 30, 2012 at 4:20 am
    Reply
  16. baycas

    Sa hinaharap naman…

    Sa bolang kristal, pag nagpatuloy na libre ang serbisyo ng mga abogado ni G. Corona hanggang sa pagtatapos ng paglilitis sa Senado, maaaring marami nang pinagkakautangan ng loob si G. Corona liban kay gloria m. arroyo…

    “The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
    CANON 4
    PROPRIETY

    SECTION 13. Judges and members of their families shall neither ask for nor accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the performance of judicial duties.

    This section should be read in conjunction with Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713 which prohibits public officials from soliciting or accepting gifts. According to this provision:

    Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of money value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office.

    Thus, aside from constituting serious misconduct, the act of demanding and receiving money or property from a litigant violates this provision of the Act. For example, a judge who accepts the free use of a car for a year or utilizes free battery charging services from the shop of the litigant or who allows a litigant to pay for the freight of for personal acquisitions also violates the Anti-Graft Law.”

    Ideya ito ni G. Rene (tukayo ni G. Corona) Saguisag sa kaniyang akda sa Manila Times noon ika-27 ng Enero 2012.

    January 31, 2012 at 8:10 am
    Reply

Comment