9 hours ago
3
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
Focus is directed now on the rigmarole happening in the Senate, particularly what the senators are doing or are not doing. And the center of attention is not only limited to one or some, but to all of them. For many of our citizenry, they are witnessing an overdose of politicizing, jibber-jaberring, grandstanding, and, yes, even complacency and indifference, and, worse, exhibition, at times, of dumb declarations masked as try-hard eloquent speeches.
Submerged under all these twaddlings is the real issue that must “forthwith” be addressed: accountability and justice.
Indeed, it is exasperating why these senators are continuously making the Filipino people go through and witness this maddening spectacle; why they are inflicting so much stress on the nation, exacerbated by the thought that public money is being wasted in the unfolding of such unproductive drama.
As of now, nothing is happening. All of the country’s senators, yes all of them — as embodiments of the Senate — are failing the Filipino people.
The 1987 Constitution provides that “the Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.” This distinct obligation transforms the Senate from a legislative body to a quasi-judicial one. All of them cannot shirk from such awesome responsibility.
The operative phrase is “to try and decide.”
“To try” means to accept evidence both testimonial and documentary, to weigh them, to connect the relevance of one with the others and finally to determine whether or not the acts and omissions alleged in the articles of impeachment were carried out — as proven by overwhelming, clear and convincing evidence — or not — as shown by an insufficiency of proofs not warranting the removal from public official from his/her high elected position. One thing going for an impeachment trial — compared to court proceedings — is that, by the Senate’s own rules, the approach in introducing and weighing the probative value of the evidence shall be liberal not strict.
And then the next step is “to decide.” The senators have to determine whether or not the alleged acts or omissions, duly proven, qualify them as impeachable offenses. If not, the accused must be acquitted. If yes, he/she must be convicted.
Many have said that acquittal or conviction is a numbers game. There is some truth to that considering that the senator-judges are highly political persons surely with certain loyalties. A two-thirds vote of all the senators, or 16 of them, is required to convict, only 10 for acquittal. At least one senator apparently had already made known his position way before reception of evidence had been made.
At the outset, the senators will take an oath that they will “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws of the Philippines.”
That is where the test lies. The oath is easier said than done. If these senators or some of them, with all the credible or non-credible evidence presented, still acquit simply based on alliances and friendship or still convict merely because of animosity and enmity, then they would not have only grossly failed in their constitutional duty “to try and decide,” but they would have unabashedly mocked the Senate as an institution, diminished the accountability-aspirations enshrined in the Constitution and destroyed the respect due them by the nation.
And so, because of their bounden duty “to try and decide,” they must transcend or, bluntly speaking, disregard friendship and enmity as factors in their self- deliberation as to their final decision. Difficult to do but they must divest themselves of politics.
If they do not know how to calibrate evidence, as soon as possible, they must study how to do it, even on a basic-framework level. They must learn to listen to testimonies, thoroughly read transcripts and pleadings, weigh their probative value, rule on objections, and make brief opinions on certain manifestations.
They must train themselves to display the demeanor of the cold neutrality of a judge, reasonably knowledgeable about the nuances of the proceeding in all its aspects.
Quite a tall order, but that is how it should be, no more and no less. Decisions cannot be whimsical and unsubstantiated.
Impractical will be attempts to inhibit those judges perceived as biased. Such moves are essentially useless considering that those who are sought to be recused will decide on their own withdrawal. Debates on this issue may further delay the trial. Recusal might likewise defeat the process. Since the requirement for conviction is two-thirds votes of all the senators, a sufficient number of them can derail and finally put an end to the trial by simply conniving to inhibit themselves to negate the count needed.
Indeed, much depends upon the conscience of each of the senators. And this precisely is the scary aspect. Do these senators have a conscience? Are they ready to do justice and the pursuit of accountability for what they really are? Will they be faithful to the evidence-based rule of law or simply be lawless and stick to their reasonless predispositions?
The citizenry, whether for the accused or against him/her, must therefore be vigilant: ready to legitimately criticize senators in relation to their constitutional duty as judges, calling their attention to their absences, inattentiveness, speculations, errors, lack of knowledge, and even condescending attitude towards the importance of the impeachment-trial process, reminding them that they are paid by the people’s money to do a decent job correctly and not to exhibit their whimsical and irrational attitudes.
Finally, senator-judges must understand — if they still do not realize it — that they are once again given the invaluable opportunity to be of direct service to the country in a very extraordinary way. They should not botch the chance. – Rappler.com
Mel Sta. Maria is former dean of the Far Eastern University (FEU) Institute of Law. He teaches law at FEU and the Ateneo School of Law, hosts shows on both radio and Youtube, and has authored several books on law, politics, and current events.
