The most notable aspect of that pastoral letter was its statement expressing the doubt of the prelates that a second impeachment of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would be "productive." That statement has been welcomed by the Palace, and condemned by the political opposition, certain groups and individuals (including bishops) that have signed the complaints as "co-complainants."
Over the last several days, media have been breathlessly featuring stories about the "bribes" to the bishops which, it is implied but not actually charged, may have "influenced" the bishops in withholding their wholehearted support of the impeachment.
I find this subtle, somewhat veiled non-accusation gratuitous, if not blatantly fatuous. If it is meant to pressure the bishops into changing the substance of the pastoral letter to suit those who might have wanted it to more forthrightly support the second impeachment, the effort will surely crash and burn before it has had a chance to take off.
To start with, the principle which is now widely accepted these days, is that bribery requires both a giver and a taker. Thus, an implication of "bribery," no matter how subtle, means that some bishops CAN be bribed. Specifically, in the context of impeachment and the CBCP stand on it, the votes of bishops can allegedly be bought with cash. Even for confirmed anti-clerics, if they still exist, that is a bit much.
But can prelates be "softened," meaning that lucre can make them more "susceptible" to the blandishments of "friends" of GMA in regard to rejecting impeachment? That assumes, of course, that the pastoral letter was an unqualified endorsement of whatever is happening in the impeachment process.
But it wasn’t that at all, particularly if one reads its constant exhortations towards "relentlessly" pursuing the truth. The letter pointedly noted that the impeachment process was not the best way of getting at the truth, not that the search for truth should be abandoned.
In this, the bishops demonstrated more realism than those who persist in a fruitless Constitutional impeachment process despite their lack of the requisite numbers to succeed in a frankly political exercise. This, plus the lack of care and legal savvy of opposition congressmen in agreeing to rules of impeachment that allow the majority to determine sufficiency of form and substance of the complaint BEFORE any sort of responsive pleading can be required of the respondent President of the Philippines.
The impeachment rules also provide that hearings can be held only after those responsive pleadings are on the record. The only way this can be prevented under the rules, which the political opposition not only voted for but in fact itself proposed (!), is if there are enough votes (78 at present) to override any finding by the House Committee on Justice of insufficiency of form or substance and sending the case directly to the Senate for trial.
That’s the principal procedural reason why the "search for truth" has been frustrated. But if, as was repeatedly stated in the Estrada case, impeachment is a political exercise, why are people surprised that, now that the tables are turned, the majority coalition in control of the House uses politics to put up an immovable obstacle to the ouster of a sitting President? This is the system we enshrined in our Constitution. Unless we change it, we’re stuck with it.
Unless, of course, you entertain "naughty" thoughts about another people power exercise. This is a different matter altogether. But, in the main, it’s also a political exercise. And if the people are not disposed to prolonging our political and economic instability by playing with fire all over again, where do you go from there?
Well, don’t ask the bishops. That, more than their disinclination to support impeachment, is what was troubling about the pastoral letter. This to me was the larger, and more ominous, ambiguity: If not impeachment, then what? To some of the clergy in the field, the lack of a contrary injunction is equivalent to a go-ahead to explore that possibility and they’re certainly reading it that way.
Recently, too, some bishops are coming clean with what the contents of those envelopes were, and what the additional "offers" had to do with. Bear in mind that aside from the reportedly significant income which the Catholic Church makes from its real estate and other more liquid holdings and educational institutions, bishops are largely left to themselves for their daily needs and diocesan projects. Parish churches are, for instance, built on the financial support provided by parishioners themselves.
Bishops are used to receiving money from a lot of people. That, let’s face it, includes government itself, as well as those whom polite society would consider unsavory characters. The Church gets not only tax breaks, but actual cash from local governments and the National Government. This has been going on since "time immemorial." Anyone who claims ignorance of this is kidding himself.
In the case of the CBCP bishops who went to that recent plenary assembly, there were offers of "reimbursements" of travel expenses, gifts of vestments and other religious accouterments, as well as of project assistance from the Departments of Health, Education and Environment. Some bishops admitted accepting these offers, many more declined or returned the proffered "envelopes."
Those who accepted deny that any of these "gifts" persuaded them one way or the other on the issue of support for impeachment. I prefer to leave them to their consciences. They can themselves explain things to God. The pastoral letter can stand on its own merits, or demerits. The bishops don’t need us to make judgments on their motives.
As we’ve already said in this space, that letter is by no means a model of clarity although I do not read it to be complimentary to the anti-impeachment forces nor hostile to the pro-impeachment diehards. It seemed to express a mainly laissez-faire attitude. Only time will tell whether or not that was the wise path to take. But we don’t need seedy stories of alleged "bribery" to muddle up the issue.