Impeachment, again

Impeachment is in the air, except there are several officials reportedly being considered for ouster, so lawmakers seem to be confused about which case should be given priority.  

Congress has impeached a president, a chief justice and an ombudsman. Only one trial was completed, and the official was found guilty and ousted. The president was booted out through people power, while the ombudsman quit before the case could go to trial.

From the previous cases, we can see that members of the current Congress can always find sufficient reason to impeach certain officials. Malacañang will deny it, but the sentiment of the president can play a critical role in the impeachment of lower ranking officials.

Noynoy Aquino was enraged by his predecessor’s midnight appointment of a chief justice when his victory as president was already known.

Aquino’s congressional allies delivered to him Renato Corona’s head at the end of an unprecedented impeachment trial.

It wasn’t impressive prosecution that doomed Corona, however, but his own testimony. Taking the witness stand, Corona admitted failing to declare a dollar account worth about P103 million in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth or SALN.

If that strict standard were to be applied again, it might doom certain officials who now face possible impeachment.

* * *

One of the embattled officials is Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno. Documents showing Sereno’s earnings while lawyering for PIATCO, which she reportedly failed to fully declare, are reportedly lying around, part of official records and just waiting to be plucked out of the filing cabinet.

Sereno’s office has denied this, saying she received lawyers’ fees from the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. from October 2003 to July 2008. The PIATCO earnings she declared, according to her office, excluded taxes she paid as well as operating and personal consumption expenses. Her office did not provide specific amounts.

Previous reports said Sereno earned at least P16 million in attorney’s fees from the arbitration case filed in Singapore by PIATCO over the construction of the NAIA Terminal 3. She declared a net worth of P24.2 million in 2016 – an increase of P2.76 million from the previous year. The SALN is just one of several issues raised in the impeachment effort against her.

Then there are the heads of the constitutional bodies: Commission on Elections Chairman Andres Bautista, whose estranged wife from hell could yet prove to be his undoing, and the feisty Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, who faces accusations of selective justice.

Morales has defended herself from accusations that she has treated with kid gloves Noynoy Aquino and his aides in corruption cases such as the scandals involving the pork barrel and Disbursement Acceleration Program.

As for Bautista, being a lawyer himself, he probably realizes that he has more explaining to do on his assets, especially with his estranged wife holding on to all the documents.

Bautista declared P176.3 million in assets in his SALN last year. His wife Patricia says she has documents showing that Bautista has 35 separate accounts with the little-known Luzon Development Bank totaling P227,701,053 – 30 in the bank’s branch in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig and five in the Makati branch.

Bautista has admitted opening multiple accounts with Luzon Bank. He also said it was “possible” that he had a dollar account for $12,778.30 with RCBC plus P256,931 in the local currency. But he denied having a foreign account for HK$948,358.97 with Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp. (HSBC).

If Patricia can prove her claim that many of the bank transactions, made “almost every day” in the election year of 2016, amounted to less than P500,000 – the threshold for reporting to banking authorities – it could warrant an investigation for money laundering.

Patricia also bared undeclared real properties: a condominium unit with parking slots at The Suite at One Bonifacio High Street, and The District condominium building in San Francisco, California.

It doesn’t matter if Bautista has pointed to a “third party” as the reason for the breakup of his marriage (Patricia has denied having an affair). At this point, even those initially shocked by the marital meltdown now say that the wealth needs explaining.

Unfortunately for Bautista, in this country where the justice system is a joke, people find it more convenient to jump to conclusions. You are considered guilty until you can prove otherwise.

* * *

Bautista has maintained his innocence, so he can probably provide the necessary explanation. His camp has also promised to unmask those behind this effort that could lead to his impeachment.

All his current choices are unpalatable: he can go on leave, quit, or stay on and wait to be impeached.

We all know the impeachment process in this country is largely political and a numbers game. Like Sereno and the ombudsman, Bautista is an Aquino appointee. And President Duterte has made no secret of his dislike for Aquino and his Liberal Party, now chaired by Vice President Leni Robredo.

The VP herself is facing possible impeachment, or else the Supreme Court, sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, might invalidate her election and install her closest rival Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.

The Marcoses have denied having a hand in the revelations of Patricia Bautista against her husband. Supporters of the Comelec chief suspect that efforts to discredit him are meant to bolster the stand of the Marcos camp that Bongbong Marcos was cheated in 2016 to favor the Liberal Party candidate.

We all know what President Duterte thinks of his VP and the Marcoses. Any president would want to have a supporter as his constitutional successor. Any president wouldn’t mind having the opportunity to appoint his choices as Comelec chief and ombudsman.

The question is whether Congress has the time for impeaching several officials. Impeachment proceedings for even one official can take up nearly an entire regular session of Congress.

Noynoy Aquino’s allies got Merceditas Gutierrez to just quit as ombudsman rather than be ousted after an impeachment trial.

Another question is whether we are learning any lessons from previous impeachment cases. At the very least, the appointing power should improve the vetting system for critical government positions.

We can’t keep using impeachment to yank out officials after every change of leadership.