The verdict...?

Finally, we are seeing the homestretch in the impeachment proceeding of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona.  

 

Last Tuesday, the nation’s attention was focused on the man himself. He took the witness stand for the nation and the Senate to see and hear the man. He spoke rather LONG and poured “everything” out including the family squabbles that involved the Basas, Guidotes and the Coronas. The opening statement was a long speech that became, actually, his apologia pro vita sua (in defense of one's life).  

 

The speech albeit from the heart tried the patience not only of the prosecution panel and the members of the Senate but also the general public. Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile was at his best when he showed all the deference befitting the office of the accused. I, too, listened patiently expecting the chief magistrate of the land to tell it all with candour and equanimity.

 

From the beginning of the so-called impeachment proceeding, I was rather very sympathetic to the Chief Justice, because I believed that he was NOT given the due process in the impeachment proceeding in the House. His case was determined purely on sheer number and NOT on the merit of the case and on giving the man “a day in court.” The House determination of the impeachable offenses, I thought, was the perception of his partisanship to the former President on account of his so-called “midnight appointment” by the former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. In short, his real “crime” was accepting the said appointment! 

 

All the charges against the Chief Justice were rather circuitous, including the error (wilful or not) in the filing of his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net worth (SALN). But all the resources of the state including the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC)’s “illegal” and “unauthorized” investigation of the chief justice’s bank accounts were mustered to destroy the man.  

 

There are three things going against the man. First, the Chief Justice, like the President who appointed him Chief Justice, was “extremely” unpopular. All surveys show that the man has an image problem. But to me this is beside the point since popularity is NOT a matter in an impeachment proceeding.

 

Second, the man pursuing him, verging on “fixation,” was “extremely” popular! No doubt, PNoy, from day one, has the popular support.  The Chief Justice is, rightly or wrongly, perceived as an OBSTACLE to PNoy’s slogan – “matuwid na daan.”

 

Third, the media and opinion makers are heavily tilted toward the people hounding the Chief Justice out of office, simply because of his “real sin” – his association with PGMA!

 

I thought that his personal appearance in his defense would finally SHOW who the man is. As chief magistrate, he would, I believe, expound on the merit of the cases against him, and that he, indeed was innocent of all charges. And if there would be a verdict of guilt or acquittal, it would be on the BASIS of LAW and EVIDENCE.

 

But sad to say, the Chief Justice failed miserably in his apologia pro vita sua. He lost me...! The Chief Justice, too, became like his accusers...! He claimed as facts without any proof that the impeachment proceeding against him was due to three things – Hacienda Luisita, Secretary Llamas and the conspiracy of the “Left.”

 

For the chief magistrate to accept these as facts was very unworthy of the man considered to be the “epitome of the man of the law.”  

 

I also thought that by telling it all and opening his dollar bank accounts with no conditions would, finally, tilt the case in his behalf. He believes that he has nothing to hide, so I also believe! But by putting conditions and demanding the same for his accusers – the 118 members of the House of Representatives and Sen. Frank Drilon – to do likewise has NO place in the trial. The 118 members of Congress and Sen. Drilon are NOT on trial. The challenge is always there without saying it and that belongs to the public, not to the Chief Justice.

 

As it is, the whole proceedings are very emotional and passionate. The whole outcome of the trial would seem dependent on personal feelings and passion either for the accused or the accusers. I feel very sad that on the impeachment of a chief magistrate the merit of the case on the basis of law and rule of evidence is lost in passion and emotions. Que sera, sera!