My column for Monday, January 27, Manila Standard Today DANGEROUS WHISPERS Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino [email protected] [email protected] rannie_aquino@yahoo Impeachment and the trial that follow it are political exercises, in the sense that they are means the Constitution gives the political branches of government to exercise a check on the judiciary (and some other constitutionally independent offices). Somewhere along the line, someone coined the phrase political justice, and that has provided reason enough for bullies to be brash about political (like buying votes is political) and to be reticent about justice, uttering it sotto voce, if it is even mentioned at all. This, for the perverse, is the reason that an impeachment trial need not be fair. It is enough that judgment is pronounced! Last time I read the Constitution, Article XI mentioned trial by the Senate, and unless the word has meanwhile acquired a heretofore unknown meaning somewhere along the Path of Righteousness, a trial means that evidence is received by impartial judges so that the verdict must be based on evidence and law, no matter that the judges may be politicians. To attempt a rebuttal by insisting that senators cannot be impartial because they are partisan is the same thing as saying that they cannot be just -- which might indeed be closer to the truth, but is certainly not what constitutional theory, in respect to impeachment trials, assumes and requires. In fact a trial before judges who cannot be partial is a contradiction in terms. If the Constitution did not intend an honest-to-goodness trial, then the Fundamental Law would have been mandating a farce, something so repugnant to any self-respecting political society that it need not be belabored. It would have been far more honest to allow a bill of attainder against high officials of the land that Legislators wished booted out of office. But the Constitution provides for the mechanics of indictment, through Articles of Impeachment, and then trial by the Senate. In fact, the senators who sit in judgment take an oath -- obviously to discharge their duty of judging fairly, because they are already under oath as senators! In any trial, any ex parte communication between an interested party and a judge or judges is not only improper but actionable in two ways: the judge may be called to account for his conduct, or the proceedings may be assailed as tainted by partiality! It will be recalled that the original Articles of Impeachment against former President Joseph Estrada included the charge that he had attempted to influence the outcome of an investigation that the SEC, then under Perfecto Yasay, was conducting against some who were believed to be the Presidents buddies. The President made publicly known both before and during the trial that he wanted Renato Corona out of the Supreme Court. He did so to Coronas face, asking rhetorically during a speech at which the Chief Justice was also present -- and in a manner markedly distant from the ways of true statesmanship -- how the Supreme Court could be fair when it was presided over by someone who PNoy alleged remained loyal to the predecessor he hates with a vengeance? His communication with senators was therefore really ex parte communication because he was an interested party. I am not going to chant the senators praises now -- not Sen. Revillas nor Sen. Estradas -- because they could, and should, have come out sooner to tell all and sundry that something very wrong had taken place. But their belated change of heart notwithstanding, their revelations remain legally and morally significant because they establish that ex parte communication did take place. An allegation corroborated by Malacanan that has admitted that meetings, albeit for a different purpose, did take place. And that takes me to my next point. No one with sufficient discretion to distinguish between true and false will subscribe to the pathetic attempt to exculpate the President: He met with the Senators to urge them to resist pressure and to judge fairly. Had the President made that announcement in public -- urged the senators to judge independently of any consideration, especially his favors, graces, and rewards -- he would have won the applause of the nation, mine particularly. But to meet them clandestinely, and to engage the services of the DILG Secretary as chauffeur ad hoc -- all this fits better into a cloak-and-dagger operation than in the context of an exhortation to be just. To attempt to influence the outcome of a trial is to pervert due process. It is to attempt to deny a person his right to a fair hearing, and to a judgment based on evidence and law. It is the exercise of raw power and unconcealed influence to cause the removal of the head of a co-equal branch of government. It constitutes a betrayal of the publics trust that the President uphold the rights of all, and the Rule of Law. It culpably violates the Constitution that binds the President, by oath, to do justice to every person and to uphold the fundamental law. It is definitely a far more serious offense that misstating entries in ones SALN!
Posted on: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 15:22:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015