Sham

On Monday, the senator-judges will go into caucus. This could be a vital turning point in an impeachment trial that is increasingly suggestive of being so much ado about nothing.

A key question that might be settled in that caucus is the one about what, for heaven’s sake, really constitutes an impeachable offense in this case.

The Constitution enumerates a number of high crimes that might be the bases for impeachment. The Chief Justice is accused of none of them. The prosecution’s case is hanging by the last thread: the alleged (but vague) betrayal of public trust.

How public trust might be so grossly betrayed that the body politic must be made to endure a costly and painful impeachment process is the subject of rule-setting without the benefit of precedent. If the standards are set too low, our politics might be too frequently convulsed by impeachment trials and the best and the brightest might be dissuaded from building careers in the public service.

The Estrada impeachment trial a decade ago is not too useful as a guide for us today. It was badly managed, raucous and, in the end, aborted by an uprising. Among the main reasons this trial fell apart, as observed by former senator Kit Tatad in a recent interview, is that the senator-judges wanted the rules fashioned so that it allows each of them adequate television face-time by directly participating in the proceedings, often usurping the roles of the prosecution and defense panels.

The closest comparable impeachment trial is probably the 1998 proceedings against then US President Bill Clinton. After a two-week trial, Clinton was acquitted.

The trial was not about whether or not Clinton was prone to allowing his testosterone to overtake his reason. If that were the case, this famously oversexed man would have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

There were only two articles of impeachment against Clinton as compared to the eight filed against Corona, testament to the usual Filipino flair for excess. The two articles involved the commission of perjury when the American President lied about his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky and the obstruction of justice when he tampered with investigation into the affair.

Again, on both articles of impeachment, Clinton might have been found guilty. But the US Senate ruled that the two articles involving misdemeanor were insufficient to constitute grounds for impeachment. On that higher standard, the case against Clinton was trashed.

Removing a public official by way of impeachment overruns the normal guarantee of security of tenure which substantiates the independence of the co-equal branches of government and the constitutional bodies instituted to ensure checks-and-balances. There has to be the gravest reason at hand, grounded on the most serious matters of state, to undertake this unusual measure. Even for the best of reasons, impeachment inevitably damages the independence of institutions.

With a lower standard for conviction, it is easy to imagine Congress holding all other branches of government and constitutional commissions politically hostage to their whim. The House of Representatives, as we have seen in the Corona impeachment, is particularly vulnerable to indulging in this type of political bullying.

After three weeks of trial, the prosecution panel appears to stumble on a daily basis. Lack of talent could not be the only reason for this. The prosecution employs over 50 private lawyers, some of whom are scholars from UP Law and bar topnotchers. It could be, simply, that they do not have a case. A hundred more witnesses and a dozen more lawyers will not cure that basic defect.

Last Thursday, for instance, the prosecution took all of two hours to present evidence that Corona also owned the parking slot that goes with the condo unit declared in his SALN. The mountains heaved and heaved and heaved, only to produce a mouse.

As the proceedings wear on, more and more are now convinced the articles of impeachment rushed by the congressmen against the Chief Justice are a sham.

This entire wasteful process might have been avoided if the congressmen took a little more time to soberly deliberate the grave effort to impeach the head of an independent branch of government. If they were truly convinced of the grounds for impeachment, the articles submitted to the Senate for judgment might have been better composed. But, it is now clear, the congressmen were in such a hurry to do the bidding of the powers-that-be and overcome by such hubris they overlooked the responsibilities of statesmanship.

The sloppy congressmen thought they had a good chance to undertake the political equivalent of an extrajudicial killing, encouraged by the untimely resignation previously of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez. Now it has become apparent the intended victim might very well survive.

If the Senate, on Monday, decides to throw out the impeachment complaint against Corona for sheer lack of merit, the public will accept that judgment. We have seen enough incompetence in this trial to last us a decade.

There will be much political fallout, of course. The presidency, that got itself entangled in this mess by joining the verbal assault on the Chief Justice even if it did not have to, will fall into lame duck status. But that could not possibly be the fault of the Senate if the chamber courageously decides to take the path of statesmanship.

There is a Latin maxim worth recalling at this point: Let justice prevail even if the world perishes.

Erratum

In last Thursday’s column, while discussing creative ways banks could raise capital from a liquid market, I mentioned Security Bank was currently offering P50 billion in special long-term deposits. The correct number is P5 billion, although it is not difficult to imagine the bank could raise more. My apologies to Security Bank for the typo and best wishes for this offering.