Institutional warfare

Senators in the previous 19th Congress didn’t want to proceed with the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

If the majority at the time wanted to, the trial would have proceeded forthwith, as mandated in the Constitution. The need to campaign for election does not hold water; an impeachment trial would have provided high-profile nationwide public exposure through multimedia coverage, which could have even saved the senators seeking election substantial campaign expenses.

The Supreme Court never issued a temporary restraining order on the impeachment trial. If the senators had carried out their constitutional mandate instead of crafting their own version of the English dictionary, we would not be facing today a looming constitutional crisis, with institutions fighting each other.

In the 20th Congress, even more senators are determined to junk the Articles of Impeachment without trial, citing the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court.

Jinggoy Estrada, who retained the post of Senate president pro tempore, looks like he knew whereof he spoke when he told reporters last week that “around 19 to 20” senators prefer to abide by the SC ruling, which declared the VP’s impeachment “unconstitutional” for violating the ban on being impeached twice within one year.

Estrada, whose father infamously became the first Philippine president to be impeached (and later convicted of plunder), indicated that the senators would likely vote to abide with the SC ruling when the chamber convenes on Aug. 6.

It’s impressive how they’re rushing to bow to the SC ruling after sitting for months on the Articles of Impeachment.

Legal experts have warned that the ruling is not yet final because motions for reconsideration are still being filed and have yet to be resolved. But trust the senators to act on anything forthwith when they put their minds to it.

*      *      *

We can all simply bow to the gods of Padre Faura (this is blasphemy for the monotheistic faithful) and just have the House refile the Articles of Impeachment no earlier than Feb. 6 next year. After all, the same senators will be eagerly moving to junk the complaints forthwith, even before trial. But this is if we are ready to live with the precedents being set by the SC.

It’s good though to temper expectations, because the SC ruling looks unlikely to be overturned.

Not only because it is unanimous, but also because it smacks of a self-serving decision, meant to provide the justices with layers of protection from ouster through impeachment and losing their fat retirement benefits and pensions. Two former chief justices, after all, have been impeached. Hilario Davide Jr. survived; Renato Corona did not.

The ruling effectively cloaks all impeachable officials including SC justices with the legal equivalent of Level IV bulletproof vests against efforts to hold them accountable for their actions. Simply file a weak impeachment complaint – the more, the better – and an erring official is inoculated for a year.

There was initial dismay that the author or ponente of the ruling is a “yellow” appointee, Justice Marvic Leonen – until people remembered that he himself faced an impeachment complaint in December 2020.This was for, among other things, failing to file his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth for 15 years while he was teaching at the University of the Philippines College of Law, and for failure to dispose of at least 37 cases within 24 months.

The complaint was endorsed at the House by a cousin of Bongbong and Imee Marcos, Angelo Barba, at the time a congressman of Ilocos Norte’s 2nd district.

Five months later, Leonen survived the impeachment through a 44-0 vote of the House justice committee. You see, Honorable SC Justices, congressmen are not so nasty after all, and they deserve presumption of regularity in carrying out their duties. No need to presume idiocy in the way they handle impeachment complaints.

Leading the defense of Leonen at the time was the UP College of Law – one of the groups now expressing grave concern over the SC ruling that he authored on VP Sara’s impeachment.

*      *      *

Some critics of the SC ruling are facing contempt cases. Counter-charges are reportedly being eyed, for harassment and violation of the critics’ freedom of expression.

SC justices can’t be such naifs to think that the ruling won’t have its critics. Especially since they didn’t even bother to allow oral arguments over such a controversial issue, and there was not a single dissenting opinion to provide a balanced perspective.

They can’t blame people for venting views that were not allowed to be heard in court, through the multiple platforms that allow a free exchange of opinions.

Torrential rains and floods forced the suspension of classes and government work throughout the week that the ruling was issued. So the justices also can’t blame people for suspecting that the ruling was rushed, come hell or high water, in time for the opening of the 20th Congress – the better for “around 19 or 20 senators” to vote this week to junk the Articles of Impeachment. Forthwith.

Related to this, it may sound unfair to the two senators, but people also can’t be blamed for asking in dismay: how could Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan pick as Senate chief the perceived ringleader of these 19 or 20 senators?

If it was merely about committee chairmanships, the minority senators also have committees each to head.

Along with “forthwith” and the “initiation” of an impeachment complaint, we have now also redefined the meaning of the congressional minority.

Our institutions are up against each other. Oh well, what doesn’t kill our republic should make it strong.

We hope.