______________________________
Something worth to read from Teddy Locsin jr. in regards with CJ Corona’s Impeachment Trial
TEDITORIAL
By Teddy Locsin Jr.
29 May 2012
The Answer Is No
Today was not the day of decision. But the day the decision would be announced.
Like in a bicameral conference committee, for all the haste of this impeachment, it must have been discussed before it was filed.
The decision of the Senate Impeachment Court, making up a law as the trial went along, and then convicting for it, is the bill of attainder of which Enrile warned.
This was not impeachment as a political process but a political assassination, masquerading as a judicial procedure.
An impeachment aspires to judicial procedure, ever mindful of judicial rules, above all respectful of due process that no citizen can be denied however high or low.
That is why the senators wear the costumes of judges. To look like judges.
But this was not a trial but a long execution carried out by the Legislature at Executive behest.
The grounds for the Chief Justice’s impeachment were culpable violation of the Constitution and Betrayal of the Public Trust.
Culpable means blameworthy. That excludes unintentional wrong. (I was very good at Latin).
In this case, the act was not even wrong. The BIR says no taxpayer ever declared dollar deposits.
Other grounds (of impeachment): treason, bribery, graft and corruption.
The grounds differ. But all share a necessary quality. A, in must be of equal gravity. And B, so obviously wrong, note, so obviously wrong as to threaten the order of political society, making it pestilent and perilous for the perpetrator to stay in power.
Now, of what was the Chief Justice accused that made him pestilent and his tenure perilous? It is the Chief Justice’s accusers in the House, in the Palace, in the Senate and in the media who threaten democracy and the rule of law and the order of political society.
The very allegations of culpable violation and betrayal of the public trust must already show what they did not in this case: a clear threat to the social order equal to treason. Enrile made it clear: the Chief Justice was not charged with ill-gotten wealth, only of failing to declare all of his presumably honestly-earned money.
Betrayal of the public trust does not mean “I don’t trust you, Honey,” like a politician’s wife says when she catches him in bed with someone else.
The constitution has a special definition. Betrayal of public trust is such gross irresponsibility, such brazen lack of integrity, such repeated disloyalty to duty, such heedless inefficiency, and laziness in the public service, such glaring injustice and extravagant living as to pose a threat to the good order of society.
No real, let alone legal proof showed any of that. Such proof, as the prosecution attempted, did not approach the standard of clear and convincing evidence for conviction. The Chief Justice was accused of Culpable Violation of the Constitution. But in what regard? How culpable? What was the act or omission and how was it wrong? Can that be wrong which everyone does under a law, and only one is accused of it?
Signing the waiver acquitted the Chief Justice. And put all his accusers on trial.
The Chief Justice did not conceal his money. It is not concealment when the law itself shields the money.
The Senators lambasted him for that. But went along with the TRO. Their secrets had to be shielded. But his could not be.
They could convict him for hiding what they can keep hiding after all.
Then the Chief Justice did the unforgivable. He waived the secrecy of his dollar deposits. Now, the Senators are expected to declare their deposits also.
Corona was dead. He was expected to lie down and die alone, not take the Senators with him.
In the end, did the Chief Justice mis-declare all that he owned as public officers are required to report?
But the remedy for mis-declaration is self-correction, not impeachment as we shall see when a friend of the president is finally caught.
Indeed, impeachment is too grave a remedy. A reckless impeachment undermines the independence of the judiciary, as it can weaken the energy of the presidency.
What the Senate did today will decide whether ours shall henceforth be a government of laws and of separated powers or a government of whimsy or one-gang rule. Whether ours shall be a government of limited powers or of powers as far as a president’s ambition will go.
Now, judicial decisions will change with time. Political actions will harden with expedient repetition. And this is a government of expediency galore.
It all came down to the question: Can the Chief Justice be impeached for his interpretation of the law that his accusers completely agree with by not signing their waivers. Now, that is hypocrisy and a violation of the equal protection of the law.
I therefore submit:
The answer is No.
Yet the Senate said Yes.
But I Told You So.
