InterAksyon.com
The online news portal of TV5
And so the circus has begun. Both sides have given their opening speeches. The prosecution now has to present evidence to prove each article of impeachment. Assertions and allegations are not evidence; merely jingoistic words designed to incite a mob for the "exorcism of evil."
Presenting so-called evidence before media is mind-conditioning. Publicizing a World Bank report that shows alleged ineligible disbursements of funds from the loan is mind-conditioning. And it is our minds being conditioned. Can we please have some context?
A wise friend reminded us that the impeachment hearing is really a political exercise. With or without evidence, the Chief Justice will lose because, in the end, the senator-judges will vote according to party lines and according to the public's sentiments. Borrowing US Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer's words "[T]he judicial system floats on a sea of public opinion." The same applies to our elected senator-judges. Unless the public reaches that level of maturity to enable it to probe deeper and decipher the legal goobledygook in which we are drowning, baka ma Edsa Tres pa.
First on the World Bank report: if you read it properly, you will see that the loan was given ten years ago, during the time of Chief Justice Davide, I think. So, was it under this Chief Justice, or was it under former Chief Justices that these payments were disbursed?
Read before you react.
This person before the Senate now has not, to my knowledge, raped a child, battered a woman, nor murdered another human being. What he is accused of, first and foremost, is that he has shown partiality and subservience to the former chief executive who commuted the life sentences of a convicted child rapist. Did that rapist’s fellow congressmen oust him? No. Did that rapist’s fellow congressmen seek the impeachment of his protector? No. Tell me: what truly is more heinous?
This person before the Senate now is accused of failing to disclose his Statement of Assets and Liabilities. No judge or justice is apparently required to disclose this to the public. All judges and justices are required to do is to file their Statements only before the clerks of court. In fact, even the two justices supporting the present chief executive did not disclose actual and detailed statements of their assets and liabilities. So, should not all justices and judges be likewise impeached and/or fired from the Bench for filing their Statements before the clerks of court?
Perhaps if he is acquitted, if the Chief Justice is true to his word in protecting the institution that he heads, could he not rally his colleagues in reviewing this so that there is transparency before the public? Likewise, isn't it time for us in the Bar to be more vigilant in preventing corruption in the judiciary? Should we not insist that the Judicial and Bar Council be more insistent on investigating the backgrounds of those who seek a judicial position?
We are at fault here too, mga compañero at compañera, don’t you think?
The person before the Senate now is accused of failing to observe the stringent standards for a justice’s “integrity, probity, and independence.” Ummm – it has been a long time since the Bar has expressed satisfaction with appointments to the judiciary. Is politics doing its job? Hence, no comment.
The person before the Senate now is accused of “blatantly disregarding the principle of separation of powers” by issuing a status quo ante order against the impeachment of the former Ombudsman. He alone signed the order? Does not Article VIII of the Cory Constitution impose the duty on the Supreme Court to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government?
Some agency must have the right to prevent abuse done by the other two branches. That is called "check and balance." So: the executive appoints, the legislature investigates, and the judiciary prevents abuses.
And I ask that same question for the other accusations: he alone signed the "gerrymandering" cases? Did not Congress first pass that law? He alone signed the TRO to enable the Arroyos to leave? The point of collegiality in the appellate courts is to allow free discourse of opinion: and may the majority win. That is called democracy. That is how we elect presidents, senators, and congressmen today. The loser may not like the result, but that is life. We win some, we lose some. We can't throw tantrums like toddlers when we do not get our way.
So, what actually requires evidence now? The accusation of "failure and refusal" to account for the judiciary development fund and special allowance for the judiciary collections? That is money. Our money.
But did not the Commission on Audit come out with a report stating that they found nothing too heinous in the manner by which judicial funds were disbursed?
So, let the circus continue. I have given up asking for statesmanship in Government. Let the chips fall where they may. The impeachment proceedings will expose whatever skeletons lurk in the closets of the courts. The public will see that no person is in fact above the law, as long as there is one person who will dare expose the truth. I hope that the public will continue to remember that they are part of a process, too. I will remember this in 2013 and in 2016.
Please send in your questions, if any, through katlegarda@yahoo.com. I will not answer personally, OK? However, if the question or situation is interesting, I may write about it in this space.
