Very hard to ignore

Even for apolitical Filipinos who would rather get on with their lives than watch the circus by the bay, the decision of the prosecution panel to withdraw three Articles of Impeachment in the trial of VP Sara Duterte is very hard to ignore.

I could not help but say in Tagalog: Ganoon na lang? Just like that? When I heard them state that their decision would be beneficial to the public, I thought, so, may utang na loob pa tayo?

Whether you like Sara Duterte or not does not matter because you or anyone else can be subjected to similar false accusations by others. What worries me is how people and elected officials can just use the Constitution to stage a very serious proceeding to achieve political agendas.

It is not a trivial matter to publicly and falsely accuse the second highest official in the land of committing three major crimes, draw in a nationwide audience, cause division among Filipinos and after the damage is done, simply walk away and deny the other party the right to answer the allegations.

It is frightening how politicians can easily use a process such as an impeachment trial or even a congressional investigation to openly disregard laws pertaining to privacy acts and bank secrecy laws.

I witnessed one such incident in the past where a congressman pressured a resource person to disregard the non-disclosure agreement he signed with another party.

Even worse is how politicians use their immunity from suit to go to town or social media and mainstream media to destroy one’s reputation while dragging and harassing the respondent’s family members.

It is one thing to be made a respondent in a case, but it is unacceptable for family members to be publicly humiliated and forced to testify against your own relative!

This does not even include how the different officials, agencies and offices of government were also dragged or volunteered to take part in what may now be called a witch hunt as a result of the withdrawals.

It is just as revolting to think how the Senate wasted 39 precious working days that could have been better used on actual legislative work such as investigating unprogrammed insertions in the proposed budget for 2027.

By some estimate, those 39 wasted days cost P975 million in “operating expenses” to conduct the trial only for the prosecution team to say: “We changed our minds.”

Yes, the prosecution still has Article 2 which they claim is a strong case against the Vice President. But I’m not convinced, and neither are some readers of this column.

“Santiago believes that if the trial takes forever, the defense gets all the time they need to pick apart every single witness, hunt for tiny contradictions in what people said and stall things out with endless arguments over what evidence is even allowed.”

“Here is another reason why the prosecution is hurrying up the impeachment. Estrada and Marcoleta cannot stay jailed for long. Though Estrada was suspended again, this will only be up to December.”

“They will soon be eligible for bail and they will eventually join the Senate. Also, Loren will be coming back from medical leave. This will place the voting threshold for conviction back to 16. The prosecution is standing on a razor’s edge. Time is not on their side.”

Meanwhile, Sebastian believes a person’s SALN wealth can legitimately grow from perfectly legal, non-ITR sources – such as capital gains, accumulated bank interest, tax-exempt bonuses or inheritances.”

“These need not be declared in the ITR because they have already been subjected to final tax. Therefore, a mismatch between the two forms is not automatic proof of wrongdoing.”

“If this were a chess match, the prosecution had the advantage but made a blunder, so the match is even! The pendulum has swung the other way. The defense may even win this!”

I honestly have refrained from wasting too much time watching scenes from the impeachment trial, but one video I saw online asked: “Why did Escudero quickly accept the withdrawal of Articles 1, 3 and 4?”

My impression was that the presiding officer was only too happy to get rid of 75 percent of the matters before the impeachment court.

If things had gone on as they should have, the defense certainly had every right and all the time to challenge the accusations and witnesses piece meal or pira piraso.

But on the other hand, I would caution Senator Escudero on relaxing too soon. Keeping Article 2 beyond the claims of the prosecution as strong and winnable may very well be a “face saving” exit of the prosecution.

They can’t simply drop all the articles all at once and suffer irreparable damage. So, keep one, win or lose. That is where the pendulum becomes a guillotine over the senators’ heads.

In making a decision, the Senate as a whole will suffer the consequences, some more than others. They will be accused of impeaching Sara Duterte or accused of favoring Sara Duterte.

Why should the senators pay the price for something the members of Congress initiated? Why should senators become unwitting collateral damage after the prosecution passes the buck to the Senate?

The burden of proof has always been with the prosecution. Likewise, the consequence of their accusations must also be on their heads. as prescribed in Deuteronomy 19:18-19: “Then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother.”

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]