Impeachment Trial, Now Open.

The Senate, after constituting itself into an impeachment court, and the senators have taken their joint oath as judges, looks forward to January 16, 2012 when the grinding impeachment trial commences.

The chief justice continues to insist on implicating the judiciary, the institution, in the impeachment case filed against him when he should not. The institution is insulated. The articles of impeachment are clearly directed against him.

While he raises in his defense the singularity and independence of his vote and those of the other justices, he contradicts himself when he says Pnoy will get the judiciary if the house succeeds in ousting him.

It is forthcoming for one to rally his sympathizers to his side in the face of overwhelming odds. The judges and court personnel across the country obliged understandably. Whether that was a good move will depend on the backlash it will create.

Already, unwittingly put to limelight is the perennial and enormous backlog of cases that have collected dusts in the courts. At any angle you look at it, a Court-sanctioned holiday does not assuage the sentiment against, at least, the snail’s pace that the cases take as they do now.

If one files a complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against court personnel who abandoned their posts to show their support for the chief justice, would the court be justified to say that it had authorized it? Or if the OCA denies mobilizing them; for tolerating them, instead of ordering them back to their posts?

If so, then how does it reconcile with court’s jurisprudential pronouncements articulating that government workers are not entitled to the right to “strike”, or collective actions, as public service is not liable to disruptions?

My, I shudder to think the other side might make an impeachment ground out of it.

Rep. Toby Tiangco Can’t See the Forest for the Trees.

House Rep. Toby Tiangco claims he bolted out of the majority bloc in his dismay over the leadership's inability to defend the independence and integrity of the lower house. He attributes his allusions to the fact that in the caucus to impeach the chief justice, he was not given a copy, hence could not have read the content of the complaint, the same merely conveyed to them via presentation by Neil Tupas, chair of the justice committee.

I would not question his motivation, but the lower house is not a paragon of virtue when it comes to attention, listening while other speaks, let alone reading first before signing a measure. I am sure he has seen the house, perhaps with himself in it, covered live on tv while in session and how it has behaved: rambling around; throwing high-fives to one another; talking in groups of after-session rendezvous; etc. All while one of their so-called, yes they dare call him, "esteemed colleague", "gentleman from wherever" delivers his privilege speech (to the birds & bees).

It's tempting to say: quit the fake niceties, and get real. Solons don't read before they sign, but they are informed of what the issue is. The copy follows after, for even if they're given the copy on time, still, very few would read it before they sign.

One reason is party politics, there is implied trust in the party leadership. Another, some reps might need someone else to read it for them. Come on, they could have slight eye defect, sight trouble, many have, that's what I mean. You may have to re-read it “many” with a single "n."

You can’t be extra careful. It’s treacherous ground to touch on some words that might be mistaken for some big names.

One former solon once joked in an aired interview that you may pass around a napkin in the house, i'm hoping a table napkin, and reps would obligingly, readily, and mindlessly sign it, with the only likely question: whose is this? No, not how much is this for? Of course, it is laced with hyperbole, but the idea is axiomatic and hardly gainsaid.

Last Note

One who feels so alarmed about the impeachment exercise may be one who is poised to do wrong and hopes to get away with it like in the old times, thus abhors a functional accountability measure. The exercise is within the constitution so let us just sit tight and watch democracy play out, and hope to learn from it.

Let us trust the prosecuting lower house, the judging upper house, and the respondent chief justice, not the Supreme Court as others would like to portray.

They are the pillars of our democratic society. Once in while they may tussle up in the spirit of checks and balance consistent with our system of government. 

Constitutional Mechanism at Work, NOT Constitutional Crisis.

Midas my goodness! How can impeaching the chief justice translate to an assault to the judiciary? How does it usher in constitutional crisis when it is this same and very constitution that provides for, on the contrary, the only means, i.e. impeachment, of removing certain erring government officials?

I guess what would be crisis-like is a system that is bereft of means of redress and affords impunity to personalities of power. As long as these means are done in accord with constitutionally prescribed processes, we should see them in the light of democratic and republican exercise.

I stand by the Court, the institution, as opposed to its temporary occupants. I would not dare second-guess the capacity and ability of the chief justice and the Court to defend himself/itself. 

He has longer tenure than the president. If he weathers this question on his acts and dispositions, then he redeems himself, clears his name, and hopefully, finally earns the trust and confidence of the people.

To entertain the thought that the charges are completely baseless is almost schizophrenic.

Newsbits

Senator Mirriam Defensor-Santiago is elected to a judge's seat in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of the United Nation. Let's see how she fits in the oft sober ICJ. It is time it had its taste of ballistic representation. I am sure the senator will bring pride to the Filipino for her authentic personality and incisive wits.

RTC Pasay Judge Mupas issues warrant of arrest against former comelec chair Benjamin "HAMBORJER" Abalos. I can sense Veteran’s Memorial Medical Center (VMMC) is praying he does not suffer from any medical condition. GMA alone is a headache tagging along with her Ms. Horn who, insider says, even asked if there was a good restaurant inside VMMC. Two of them in the same facility would be a nightmare, worse if he turns up with his own "Horn."

It's time to dust off the 23 robes the senate bought for the botched Guttierrez impeachment trial, london parliament robe style @4-5k each I heard. One bought for then ombudsman may not fit the chief justice, but I'm sure the CJ can bring his own. Is this a case of every peso spent put to good use?

Quezon City local government giving free parking to senior citizens is a good move, but obviously it could not be as inclusionary and far-reaching as the yellow card -free health care access- of Makati. I can't imagine a good number of senior citizens driving around to really matter.

Someone Dehorn Ms. Horn, Please!

For days now, Ms. Horn has been blabbering to the media on all sorts of incredible accounts of how GMA has been violated etc.etc. to the point that it becomes irritating why the administration has been unusually meek on the issue. It is high time the government lawyers dehorned her and muzzle her up.

In my previous article I commended the GMA camp, including Ms. Horn, for competently doing its job vis-à-vis the indecision of the interior department and the police on such mundane issue as transporting an accused. But Ms. Horn has since gone way over her head, incessantly harping on legal matters she has no expertise over; even clear understanding of.

She had better leave the legal pronouncements or argument to their lawyers, and not arrogate to herself what clearly is beyond her competence.

Today, in her interview at Headstart, she continued her make-believe claims so exaggerated she starts sounding like a nonsense machine. For instance, she says that GMA’s terms of hospital arrest is excessively restrictive and poor that she may be worse off than a regular inmate in a regular detention cell. What baloney! I suggest she spend one day in a real detention cell to give her a clue of what she’s talking about.

Then she proceeds to lament that the police’s advice that there may be some curtailment in the amount of visits and access to GMA as a violation of Republic Act… –not surprising she failed to cite the number– (susmariosep magpakalawyer eh!) so let me supply, RA7438, the law which defines the rights of persons arrested, detained, or under custodial investigations.

She goes on to say that it violates GMA’s right to access to her lawyers, doctors, priests, members of family, etc. Notably, she enumerated them in plural forms. But a reading of the subject special law, particularly Sec. 4 (b) enumerates, and seemingly in a conscious and deliberate manner, the said persons in its singular form.

It is not difficult to understand why it is so. For otherwise, if the law allows all the lawyers and doctors she could afford, all the priests and ministers she could convince, and all members of her family including Ms. Horn to confer with her at all times, then her hospital arrest will look more like a continuing reunion party or a political campaign.  

In fact, in that same law, it is provided that the security officer who has custodial responsibility over the detainee may undertake such reasonable measures as may be necessary to ensure his safety and prevent his escape. Therefore, reasonable restrictions are in order considering that GMA is no doubt a person of interest. 

I concede that by all means she must be allowed access to her lawyers any time of the day, or even night if the urgency of the matter at hand warrants. But NOT to an entourage or retinue of aides and alalays. Again, both Ms. Horn and GMA must wake up to the latter’s reality now, that is, she is accused for crimes so heinous (electoral sabotage & several counts of plunder) the law may not allow bail.

Ms. Horn squeamishly ranting about being deprived of laptops, internet access, ipod, and such other things not allowed a detainee is just pushing luck too far. She is simply out of touch with reality. She has got to put her feet on the ground, and stop daydreaming as though all these are not happening.

If she does not wise up, then it is the job of the government to counter her innuendos of irregularity in the treatment of GMA. The administration’s silence lends Horn the bravado to go babbling in the media.

Sadly, the public tends to believe, regardless of the truth, whoever has a side of story to offer it. 

She’s Been Mirandized: That’s it! Cops Need Not Ask How an Accused Wishes to be Transported.

Time and again this administration seems bent on amusing us. Where on earth can you find an accused negotiating her transport with the police? And the Police and the interior obsequiously waltzed with her. Viola! We have a zarzuela; poor Pnoy’s got a black eye again.

Goodness, has the police ever done anything decisive? Neither can Sec. Robredo be expected to make a difference. Everyone remembers his incertitude or even faintheartedness from the Mendoza hostage crisis to the Sarah Duterte mauling punching incident. Today’s drama was a spectacle almost beyond belief, and sad to say it highlighted, once again, the ineptitude and the misplaced comity that is crippling this department.  

Granted, the accused finds all the succor in our constitution and laws. That is for reasons consistent with fundamental presumption of innocence. But nowhere in the litany in the bill of rights and other laws do you find that an accused has the right to negotiate or argue the propriety of the mode or means of her transport. That is overstretching and reading too much into what you don’t find in the laws.

If the chopper flight was never discussed with them before, as complained of, it is because they are never entitled to its discussion. It is police operation. For security reasons, all the more that the police should have the most latitude in discretion, and to hold in secrecy the ultimate means of transport if it so deem proper. Those pilots put and lose their lives doing what they’ve sworn to do. It is insulting of an accused to discount their judgment, as though one’s life is more dispensable that the other.

It is hilarious that the whole nation has to be treated to this incredible fence-sitting, shilly-shallying law enforcement yet again. One may be fuming: “But she’s the former president.” That is the whole point: She WAS the president. Besides the fact that she’s the president NO MORE, she was voted into office of PUBLIC TRUST by the people, and the same people believe she trampled upon that trust by the very nature of the charges against her.

It is fair to say we should not judge her, and I guess no one does.  Let the courts determine her fate; let justice take its course. People agree to that. However, we must remember that to their minds, the accusations are far from baseless. The “hello Garci” tape, and her belated aired “I am sorry” address to the controversy are prima facie in the mind of the public of breach of trust.

But again, that is a side issue as far as today’s event is concened. The point is the vacillation and indisposition of the interior department and the police under it. The lawyers and aides of the former president are, in fairness, just competently doing their jobs.

That notwithstanding, I believe the majority is willing to give little concessions to the former president, owing to her alleged health condition, but none should be of sort of any extra amenities. Like any mortals, she has to wake up to her reality: she is being held to account for crimes so grave even the laws may not allow bail.

Unfortunately, if it were one unknown accused, he would have been collared, cuffed, shoved into a police car, whisked to a precinct and hurled into a cell of 50 –for a 20-spacer. All like in a day’s work, and none of this fanfare, and could likely be for a petty crime.

It has for a long time been tempting, if they have not been tempted yet, for people to accept that each of us has his own REALITY depending on one’s stature. It is this double REALITY that has long undermined our brand of democracy.

That REALITY makes the “EQUALITY IN THE EYES OF THE LAW” an even more dubious proposition.