Political

In case the scenario described by the DDS as an impossible dream materializes – meaning a majority of the 13 Supreme Court justices reverse their invalidation of the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte – will the Senate revive the archived case?

After all, even before motions for reconsideration (MR) were filed and factual mistakes were pointed out, including by ABS-CBN whose report on the House impeachment vote was erroneously cited in the ruling, it looks like the senators had already made up their minds to junk the case before trial.

Is this a constitutional option for the senators?

After blatantly ignoring Supreme Court orders prohibiting pork barrel-type appropriations in the national budget and postponing the barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections, senators have scrambled to comply with the SC ruling on the impeachment, even before the MRs have been resolved. It’s as cringe-worthy as that standing ovation given by Congress to BBM when he told the thieves among them, “Mahiya naman kayo!”

If another figment of the guni-guni or imagination becomes reality and the case actually goes to trial, do impeachment proponents think senators will vote for conviction?

After all, several senators led by their reelected chief have said this is not so much about accountability but about politics. BBM’s sister, Sen. Imee Marcos, slammed the weaponization of impeachment by a “big baby / Bondying” to eliminate Sara Duterte from the 2028 presidential race. The same sentiment has been expressed by the VP and her supporters.

While Ate Imee did not name names, she urged congressmen to replace their Speaker instead of the VP.

Bondying, an adult who acts like a baby, is a comic book character created by graphic novelist Mars Ravelo and introduced in Pilipino Komiks for the first time in August 1953.

*      *      *

The more accurate description of the situation is that the VP’s impeachment is both political and about accountability.

Even if carrots and sticks were offered by the House leadership to congressmen for that plenary vote to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, what of it? Wheeling and dealing is how things get done in both chambers.

In 2007, then president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was accused of distributing brown paper bags stuffed with cash to provincial governors and about 100 congressmen who were invited to Malacañang, apparently to block her impeachment over the bribery scandal involving Chinese telco giant ZTE. Two governors and a priest said their loot bag contained P500,000 each in cash.

GMA survived the impeachment attempt.

Even last week’s Senate voting on what to do with the SC ruling was politically driven. Two members of the minority jumped to the other side, although at least they first gave Minority Leader Vicente Sotto III a heads-up about it.

Sotto told The STAR’s “Truth on the Line” last week that the jump by the two minority senators wasn’t about accountability, but mainly driven by politics.

If Martin Romualdez would be taken out of the equation and replaced as Speaker, would the 19 senators consider the impeachment case based on the merits?

The DDS in the chamber are certain to stand by the VP without bothering to review the charges and the evidence.

As for the rest led by SP Chiz Escudero, who seems to have developed a personal animosity toward Romualdez, can they still invoke politics as the reason for refusing to try an impeachment case?

*      *      *

President Marcos can’t seem to flee fast and far enough from the impeachment issue. But last week, BBM was pinned down for a comment on the Supreme Court ruling.

It did not touch on the merits and it wasn’t about accountability, he said – something that the SC also emphasized. All that the SC said, BBM noted, was that the House “did not handle it properly.”

This supposed procedural “mishandling” of the case is currently the subject of several MRs filed by the House and at least three other groups of petitioners.

BBM stressed that the president of the republic has no role in the impeachment process, although he has maintained that he saw no reason to impeach his estranged UniTeam running mate.

“I’m an impeachable officer. I cannot involve myself in any of this,” he said. Maybe he should tell this to the SC justices, all of whom are impeachable officers.

If BBM is secretly backing the VP’s ouster through impeachment, he may consider listening to his Ate Imee’s suggestion, and encourage a leadership change at the House.

The VP’s problems began intensifying when she hurled that broadside against an ambitious tambaloslos – a mythical monster in Visayan lore with oversized (or herniated) cojones. The VP suffers from a serious case of foot-in-mouth disease, although she doesn’t apologize for any of her statements.

Since she did not name names, no one reacted in public. But soon after, the VP (and her brothers) lost their substantial regular funding for their offices. The VP lost her confidential funds, her Cabinet post and her trusted bodyguards.

There’s an apocryphal tale that the guy who felt alluded to as the tambaloslos later murmured: “So now, who has no balls?” Or words to that effect.

This feud is coloring the impeachment case. Never mind if the principal complainants in the Articles of Impeachment are mainly from progressive groups; the Speaker is seen to be in bed with the pinks, yellows and reds.

The impeachment is also impeded by concerns about who will replace the VP in case she is ousted by impeachment. If the proponents cannot dispel suspicions that it will be the Speaker, the archived case could be as good as dead. Even if the SC reverses itself.

But impeachment is intrinsically a political exercise so I don’t get that beef about the process being politicized. The VP said it was mainly a move against her. She’s being impeached; doesn’t this go without saying?