1 week ago
25
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
It was January 2001. The impeachment trial of Joseph Estrada was in progress at the Senate since November 20 the previous year. The sitting president was impeached in the House of Representatives on November 13.
How impeachment trials impact the public is not to be underestimated. Because all of Manila’s television channels and radio stations covered the daily hearings live, the public had access to the trials on a blow-by-blow basis.
Was the popular interest triggered by Erap winning on a populist vote? The wide margin he received in the presidential elections of 1998 easily gave him a decisive edge over the other candidates. The voter turnout, to begin with, was high — 86.5%. Erap turned in 10,722,295 votes, a landslide margin over the second placer Jose de Venecia who received 4,268,483 votes. It was a no-contest vote.
But there was another side to the popular interest for the Estrada impeachment trial. It had a historical significance that was not to be taken lightly. This was the first time the Filipino nation witnessed through radio and television an elected president of the Republic stand trial to face a possible conviction with full media coverage.
Thus it was that on one January day in 2001, I hailed a random taxicab somewhere in metropolitan Manila. As I opened the door, I noticed immediately the full blare of the car radio — it was tuned in to the impeachment trial. The driver was following the trial’s progress and his passengers that morning probably did not mind, as all else did.
Trying to pick up a conversation, I asked him how the trial was proceeding, feigning some ignorance. His answer floored me. He knew all the details of the evidence presented that incriminated Erap in the corruption charges.
The taxi driver knew them all — how much pay-offs Erap received from the illegal gambling jueteng, how many millions he got from the money of the tobacco farmers’ cooperative, the mansions he had built for his mistresses, and that his bank accounts were hidden under the name of Jose Velarde. The driver not only spoke like he was well informed. But more importantly this — around this time of the trial, I could sense a bias born out of an in-depth and exhaustive knowledge.
He believed that President Estrada was guilty of the charges and that he should be convicted.
That was exactly what I had wanted to zero in — did he think that the president of the Philippines was guilty and thus was worthy of getting convicted? Disclosure — between the taxi driver and I, I thought I was the one who had a bias against Erap — I did not vote for him.
That morning, I heard candor from one insignificant taxi driver who was exercising his right to an informed opinion. He had voted for Erap as president in 1998. “I was convinced that he was the president who could identify with struggling people like us who make ends meet (Erap para sa mahirap, he said).”
“Hindi pala, napaka-corrupt din pala niya.” (He turned out to be very corrupt). Of the evidence presented by the prosecution in the impeachment trial, what impressed him the most was the hidden wealth stashed in banks, and certified to by the banks themselves (“Napatunayan ho ng mga bangko,” he told me).
There are two sets of judges in an impeachment trial — the 24 senator judges and the public. The 24 senators will wear robes. The public judges are free as a bird in decorum as they listen to or watch the daily proceedings. Here is the most acute part that public judges will watch out for: they will not wait for verdict day. As they follow the daily trial, they will form their own judgment based on the evidence to be presented.
The gist of any impeachment trial (as manifested as well in the later Renato Corona impeachment), will be the evidence. It will awe the public. It will stimulate them to make judgments. More significantly, the evidence will form their minds. They will judge the judges.
Will it be the same for the forthcoming Sara Duterte impeachment trial? The environment will not exactly be a replica. There were no trolls in 2001. There was no Red China factor to fund and disseminate troll-generated opinions. Yet radio and television will still rule the day because live coverage will have authority that trolls do not have. Trolls will have no access inside the trial hall.
Radio and television will still define public opinion. An impeachment trial thus is not merely a numbers game. Here is where senator judges will be forewarned. If they will show their bias in favor of the accused, the public will see that. And if it is not to the public’s liking, they will use their power to reprimand public officials.
For that, we can only use as standard the Tessie Aquino Oreta lesson that she bitterly paid for. Oreta danced in rejoice before the TV cameras when the prosecution walked out of the Senate courtroom for protesting against the 11 senators who voted not to open the envelope. Tessie Aquino Oreta, the youngest sister of Ninoy, made no secret that she was hyper partisan for Estrada.
For doing the jig before the cameras, the public judges nicknamed her the “Dancing Queen.” Vis-à-vis the convicting evidence in the Senate trial, the public was offended. To quell public anger, Oreta had to apologize to the Filipino nation. In 2007, she attempted a Senate comeback. Her campaign ad was her vehicle to apologize. A voice-over asks: “Tessie, tapatan ’nyo. Bakit ka nag-dancing queen?” (Tessie, be frank. Why did you do a dancing queen act?)
The ad then pans to Oreta: “Malaking pagkakamali ’yung ginawa kong iyon.” (That was a big mistake). Oreta then confessed in tears: “Gusto kong humingi ng patawad.” (I want to beg for forgiveness.)
Oreta was defeated in the elections. She tried another route in 2016, running as House representative for Malabon. Voters rejected her.
It will be the same with the Sara Duterte impeachment trial. The public judges will have the power to make or unmake the political careers of the 24 senator judges.
A piece of wisdom to the 24: of the 60 lawmakers from Mindanao in the House, 43 signed the Sara impeachment. Out of the 43 who signed, 37 ran in the 2025 elections. Only eight lost in their reelection bid, and only one failed in another elective post. Five of the six who did not run were successively replaced in their positions by a relative.
Of the Manila congressmen whom she negatively campaigned against because they grilled her in the House hearings, only Benny Abante lost. That the rest won is not a good political omen.
Finally, an indispensable piece of history — the Erap impeachment trial was aborted, but the public made sure to kick him out of power in EDSA Dos. The public can be fiercer than a Sara Duterte tantrum.
That random taxi driver, wherever he is now, will be the more powerful judge of Sara Duterte because it is people like him who know better — that impeachment is all about accountability of our own money. – Rappler.com
