In the event this is not possible, for one reason or another, the meeting of the House Committee of Justice may be held after the State of the Nation Address of the President scheduled on July 28, 2003. The meeting of the Committee will probably be held sometime in August. My experience in Congress is that this session will be dominated by partisan politics in the run-up to the 2004 elections.
Theoretically, impeachment is a political and a legal process. It is political since the power to impeach is lodged in the elected members of Congress who are the representatives of the people. Their acts are based mainly on political considerations. But the grounds for impeachment and the procedure to be observed are not entirely at their discretion – a good number may feel bound to follow legal rules and precedents.
The Committee is composed of 41 members of the ruling coalition, chaired by Congressman Marcelino C. Libanan of the NPC (under Danding Cojuangco). There are six minority members, four of them from the LDP (under Sen. Angara) and two from the PMP, namely Reps. Ronaldo Zamora and Digalen Dilangalen, both of whom indorsed Estrada’s impeachment complaint.
Reacting to the filing of the impeachment case, senior Justice Bellosillo declared that "the complaint will not prosper". He said "we have not done anything that would cause our impeachment from the office… The issue had been settled long ago. Our decision on the legitimacy of the Arroyo government had long ago become final and I do not see any reason for its reopening… There were even resolutions from the House of Representatives and the Senate upholding the legitimacy of the government of President Arroyo". As for the book of Justice Artemio Panganiban entitled Reforming the Judiciary, which recounted the Biblical initiatives and interpretations of Justice Panganiban annd Chief Justice Davide in the early morning of Jan. 20, 2001, Justice Bellosillo’s answer was apt: "Perhaps that is what Justice Panganiban thought. We (the justices) are not bound by it." How about their going to the EDSA Shrine to witness the oath-taking? He quickly countered: "Was that not a historical event that each one is entitled to witness? Everybody was free to go to EDSA and witness the occasion."
A number of reputable lawyers I had the chance to meet in the last few days feel the same way as Justice Bellosillo. The general reaction is that the decision of the Supreme Court had become final since the year 2001. There is no way it can be revived and questioned under the principle of res judicata.
But suppose a few major leaders who have deep-seated resentments against some justices of the Supreme Court –now respondents in the impeachment case – owing to some important decisions they had rendered against their interests (for example, the coco-levy decision penned by Justice Panganiban, the PIATCO decision penned by Justice Reynato Puno with a separate opinion by Justice Panganiban, the Amari decision penned by Justice Carpio) agree to pool and unite their votes in the House, would it not be possible for them to sustain a finding of probable cause issued by the House Committee on Justice by the vote of at least one-third of all the members of the House (73 now) this coming August and send the case to the Senate for immediate trial? This is possible but there will be some difficulties. The Constitution says that the presiding officer in the Senate trial, where the person being impeached is not the President of the Philippines, is the Senate President. Since Senate President Drilon has already declared that the impeachment case is part of a destabilization plot, will there be a move on the part of the Opposition to disqualify him or perhaps an attempt to unseat him? If so, may not these maneuvers cause prolonged delay in the Senate trial, in what could be a disorderly run-up to the 2004 elections? There is another possibility. Since the impeachment case will have the effect of undermining the finality of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Estrada v. Arroyo and Estrada v. Desierto, supra, may not the justices justifiably decide, with the encouragement of the Chief Executive, to boycott the proceedings of the House and the Senate, on the obvious ground that the plan to review the final decisions of the Supreme Court directly violates the principle of separation of powers and undercuts the doctrine of res judicata? Moreover, this impeachment case is an actual threat to the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court. The message it conveys to the justices is that they should make sure their decisions involving or affecting members of Congress are in conformity with the latter’s interests and expectations.
Inasmuch as the ultimate target of the impeachment case is President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, her role will be vital, whether she decides to run for the presidency or not. If she decides to run, considering all the advantages of an incumbent, including the backing of the AFP and the PNP, how can the impeachment case prosper in the House or in the Senate? On the other hand, if the commentaries are correct in stating that the Comelec is in no position to hold clean and orderly elections in May 2004, due to the obstacles in carrying out the modernization program under RA 8436 and the Absentee Voting Law (RA 9189), what kind of elections shall be have if on top of these difficulties eight members of the Supreme Court are on trial in the Senate? In case of a chaotic, turbulent election in May 2004 and its aftermath, aggravated by the activities of the MILF and the NPA, may not be the impeachment strategy of Estrada and his lawyers backfire and eventually lead to a military takeover?
In my view, the best thing for the country is for the accused Erap Estrada to face the music in the plunder trial, whether the hearing will go through on June 30 or some other date. If he is innocent, as he alleges, he should be absolved; otherwise, not. The Special Division of the Sandiganbayan should, in the national interest, finish the case as soon as possible.