Kung hei fat choi!

Another first in Philippine history! The impeachment trial of Chief Justice Corona has truly claimed the spotlight. This trial as many have said is “a class on its own.”

It is amusing to see the composition of the defense panel led by former Justice Serafin Cuevas, who has shown that his wisdom and decorum is of a higher standard than that of the prosecution team who certainly look like ants waiting for sugar to drop. The same goes for Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile. He has shown honor and brought respect in the Senate to a higher ground. Let’s hope the Senate body will be able to sustain it. The public is watching every move made for possible grandstanding and even a faux pas from Enrile himself.

The prosecution panel who is mostly composed of a younger team of lawyers shows us little eager beavers. They should watch their every move from the way they speak (arbitrate), the way they stand and the way they present their defense. More refinement and protocol is needed boys!

The irony in this setting is that we see “buwayas” (crocodiles) questioning “buwayas”. What more do you want? This surely beats the odds!

* * *

Anyway, we shouldn’t be carried away by big words and wild cards turning up in the Senate during the impeachment trial. The law is still the law. There is just a slight twist here. We need to understand that this trial is not happening in the Supreme Court. It is under the Senate Court.

While impeachment is basically a political exercise, it has to be done in accordance with a legal process. This is the reason why the trial is being conducted in a manner similar to an ordinary court case. But unlike a judicial controversy that may be corrected by appeal to a higher court if not resolved on the basis of a prescribed quantum of evidence (i.e. proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, preponderance of evidence in civil cases, convincing proof in administrative cases) the impeachment proceeding is unique and a kind of its own because anything a senator-judge will find sufficient to justify his vote of conviction or acquittal may not be questioned except in the bar of public opinion. Thus, a senator-judge may base his decision on surveys regardless of the evidence; on evidence presented during the trial regardless of public opinion; on what he perceives to be for the best interest of the country; on what his political party would advocate; by a toss of a coin; or by what his mother-in-law would opine.

We can say therefore that a senator-judge in convicting or acquitting the impeached official could never be legally wrong in the same manner that voters are always correct in the ballot even if they opt to elect the worst candidate. Other than being haunted by a disturbed conscience, a senator-judge will only be answerable to the electorate if his vote of acquittal or conviction is a politically wrong decision.

The key for the prosecution to get a conviction is to win the hearts of at least 16 senator-judges by the evidence they present, by their research and preparation, by the arguments they expound, by the pressure of public opinion, or by whatever means they might deem effective. Notwithstanding some views that the senators might be influenced by the demands of re-election, I hope that they will decide on the basis of merits and due process as envisioned in the Constitution and not on personal or other considerations. The senator-judges will not only be deciding the fate of the Chief Justice but the very future of our democratic institutions.

Under the rule on “checks and balances” which is the bedrock of a democracy, the impeachment power of the legislative branch is intended to check an abuse on the part of the judiciary or the executive, but never an instrument of abuse against these co-equal branches of government. Our senator-judges may find it imperative therefore to consider the evidence and the overall merits of the charges against the Chief Justice, lest we have a banana democracy in a banana republic.

If the prosecution will be unprepared as they have shown in the first week, if they fail to substantiate the charges with credible proof, if they will simply rely on the perceived public unacceptability of the Chief Justice, the number 16 may never come.

We know for sure, by the way the Senate President presides over the proceedings with unquestionable impartiality and fairness, that this will not be a walk in the park for the prosecution. This team should work very hard. They have the burden of proving the charges against the Chief Justice. They should work double time tin proving that the Chief Justice must be impeached. Otherwise, the Chief Justice also deserves true justice.

It was a complete waste of time when the prosecution failed to present the first set of evidence on the second day of the trial after the senator-judges questioned its move to defer discussions on the first Article of Impeachment in favor of the second. Don’t they know that all documents presented in court cannot be deemed authentic without someone under oath testifying to the authenticity of the documents including its due execution?

It is not correct that computer-generated documents are considered genuine even if it has a bar code. Someone has to say that the bar code is genuine. The custodian has to say that they have the original.

By the way, I wonder how the Senate will deal with the issue of former Justice Serafin Cuevas – asking him to inhibit himself from the trial because of RA 910 that states: a retiring justice who is receiving pension from government cannot appear as counsel before any court in a) any civil case wherein the Government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof is the adverse party or in b) any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the Government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office or c) collect any fee for his appearance in any administrative proceedings to maintain an interest adverse to the Government.

If Cuevas finds it in his heart that this is wrong then, he must walk away for ‘delicadeza’ sake. Abangan!

My grandfather Benito Tagorda Soliven, who was a congressman and a lawyer in his own right once wrote: Laws are not self-executing and very often reach a point of saturation, in which only the human factor retain decisive force and power. For, though, in a strict sense, a democratic government is one of laws and not of men, it is also true that those laws are carried out by officials who are men, impelled by varying human motives, with divergent views as to the interpretation and application of laws, and again these are intended for the people who are themselves not an abstraction but human beings. Hence Lincoln’s famous utterance, in which laws are mere laws are omitted when he spoke of a “Government of the people, by the people and for the people. Among the national problems and affairs of state, the solution and conduct of which will have most far-reaching effects on generations to come.

I continue to pray that the decision in this trial will be made not in the interest of one person alone but for the Filipino people. Kung hei fat choi!