EDITORIAL - Kiko must inhibit himself

On March 2, weeks before her impeachment by the House of Representatives, Senator Kiko Pangilinan already asked Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez to resign, apparently convinced of her guilt. Here is part of what Kiko said in a public statement:

“The once highly regarded, respected, and feared Office of the Ombudsman is no more. What we have is an office that is a complete and total embarrassment to public office and service. For the sake of decency in public office she should just get out or be kicked out.”

Kiko may have been merely expressing an opinion. But the problem is that, as a senator, he will be sitting as a judge in the impeachment trial of Gutierrez not that the House has transmitted the impeachment articles to the Senate.

The shoe is therefore on the other foot. It is now Kiko who should inhibit himself from sitting as a judge of Gutierrez because he has already prejudged her and her case. Long before the Ombudsman was impeached, Kiko has already found her guilty.

If Kiko refuses to inhibit himself, then he should at least have the decency to abstain from voting. That is because a vote by Kiko is already tainted with prejudice, and one that he already announced publicly long before Gutierrez was even impeached.

Even more crucial and important than whether or not Kiko should inhibit himself is the matter of integrity of the entire Senate itself. As a supposedly independent-minded trial body, the Senate cannot allow within its ranks someone who has already publicly compromised himself.

It is widely believed that the impeachment of Gutierrez is actually a stab against former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, as part of President Noynoy Aquino’s war against corruption. The way to victory in this war, according to Noynoy, is to keep to the “daang matuwid.”

But to keep to the “daang matuwid” the process of impeachment must not be tainted. It would be a hollow victory in the name of anti-corruption if the impeachment trial gets corrupted by one trial judge who, after already prejudging the case, goes on to cast one prejudiced vote.