Endgame (Four years later)

In light of the passing of former Chief Justice Renato Corona, I thought it would be appropriate to publish an old draft that has been sitting on the virtual shelf of my Blogger site for quite some time. First written in May 29, 2012, this was originally meant as an amateurish commentary on his trial and the unprecedented verdict handed down by the Philippine Senate who sat as an Impeachment Court. But given the state of affairs in our country today, and since the national elections are now a week away, I find that it is important for us to look back on this period of time in our recent history and realize how much has changed since that fateful May afternoon.

. . .

(May 29, 2012)

Photo credits: gmanews.tv

After 44 hearings which spanned 5 months, occupied hundreds of pages on the newspapers each day and countless hours of TV time each week, and elicited reactions from Filipinos both on the street and online, the verdict has been laid down on now-former Chief Justice Renato Corona. The verdict is guilty, with 20 senator-judges voting to convict and only 3 voting to acquit on Article II of the eight three Articles of Impeachment which dealt with the non-disclosure of several properties and dollar- and peso-accounts in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net-worth (SALN).

I have mentioned before that I enjoy watching TV series about cops and lawyers, and seeing this Impeachment Trial as an opportunity to get a glimpse of what an actual trial looks like (since the media doesn't always extensively cover any trial, let alone a court trial), I watched it every chance I got. As sad as it may seem to everyone else who "had a life" and had something else to do in the afternoon, this was - no pun intended - my "guilty" pleasure, my two o'clock habit for the last five months.

As someone who followed this thing from the beginning, I believe I am entitled to my own opinion. I may not be a legitimate "student of the Law" but I'd like to think that, from what I had seen and heard up to this point, I do understand a little of what I'm talking about. The mere basics, if you will. And just as everyone else had the right to comment, or tweet, or post a status, or just voice his/her sentiments out there, I'm exercising the same right to get mine out here.

And my opinion is this: I respect the decision of the Senate who sat as an Impeachment Court. It may not be the decision that I agree with, but I respect them nonetheless. In fact, I commend several of them for displaying their true character during the trial. The passion for the law of Defensor-Santiago (profanities aside), the wits of Escudero and the male Cayetano, and the wisdom of the honorable presiding officer Ponce-Enrile are noteworthy in their own right.

It's easy to look at our senators and say "namumulitika lang 'yung mga 'yan kasi malapit na ang eleksyon". After all, the Impeachment Trial is a quasi-political procedure, and politics will indeed play an important role in their decision. But the trial is also quasi-judicial, and looking at them not as senators but as judges - if not jurors as in an actual court trial - I believe they have done their duty well.

Besides, what is the role of the jury? (Or in this case, senator-judges?) They are to render their verdict based on the evidence presented to them. In my opinion, a whole lot of things went terribly wrong as far as the evidence is concerned. From my understanding, evidence or testimony in which a witness had no direct involvement is objected to and dismissed as "hearsay" in the Rules of Court. Without such validation, those documents are just that - hearsay.

And so what was the evidence that most of them seemed to base their vote on? It was the testimony of Corona himself, on the record, documented, and - since prosecution waived the right of cross-examination - unimpeachable. While most of them recognized that the omission of his dollar accounts as governed by the Bank Secrecy Law was done "in good faith", his admission of the same still proved to be blameworthy in their eyes.

Photo credits: rappler.com

Ponce-Enrile posed a very good question to lead defense counsel Cuevas (a man I will hire in a heartbeat as my lawyer should that need arise) about the meaning of culpa and dolus. I knew what culpa meant, having heard it in church dozens of times during traditional Latin Masses ("mea cupla, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" - "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault"). And so I looked up what dolus means, and Google showed that it was "intention". It was an important question because I think the point that Ponce-Enrile was trying to make was even if your dolus was good, the fact that you omitted significant information already constitutes culpa on your end. The end doesn't justify the means, therefore you are still culpable. It was regrettable that Corona had to pay a price for that. But that logic, I can respect.

What I can't respect is everything else that surrounded this whole circus.

Why the heat on Corona in the first place? Because he was PGMA/CGMA's "midnight appointee"? All allegations aside, it was her constitutional right as President (she was still President at that time) to appoint Corona as the Chief Justice. Just as it is PNoy's constitutional right to appoint the woman who swore him into office as Ombudsman, his running-mate in the elections as DOTC Secretary, and whoever he decides to replace Corona as the next Chief Justice. My money's on another Carpio.

And talk about "palusot". Corona had to go because everyone clearly knows he was pro-GMA, right? Problem is, they couldn't prove it. They got very lucky with Article II. It was a huge stretch for the lower House to accuse him of "influencing" the Supreme Court in deciding for or against certain matters, since it was made clear by the Impeachment Court that "one person cannot be blamed for a collegiate decision" (unless conspiracy was proven, which they can't), and that is why they dropped five of the original eight Articles of Impeachment. Article II was the make-or-break and the prosecution made it, no thanks to their "evidence" but thanks to Corona's own indulgence to appear before the Senate. Nakalusot sila sa butas ng karayom.

And what did this prove in the end? Was Corona a corrupt official? Was his conviction a step further on the still-elusive "daang matuwid"? Will we expect more transparency from our government officials from this day onward, and expect them all to submit immaculate SALNs? 

. . .

Photo credits: newsinfo.inquirer.net

Four years later, these questions are still left unanswered. Perhaps it might remain that way, now that the principal character of this case has gone on to face a supernatural kind of judgment, and several key personalities find themselves in the awkward position of being accused of the same charge with which they voted to convict the Chief Justice. Nevertheless, the only certainty amid this series of unfortunate events is that Corona's demise from the highest court in the land was the catalyst that sparked a nationwide conversation about our leaders and triggered a rousing call for transparency in our government. We were no longer indifferent. It made us more watchful, more vigilant, and therefore less tolerant of any indiscretion or distrust from our officials. It was also a teachable moment for today's generation of citizens, who otherwise would have never heard the terms "SALN" or "Bank Secrecy Law" or "freedom of information" and understood why it was so important to those fighting for a corrupt-free country. Armed with this knowledge, it will be up to us - the electorate - to decide for ourselves the kind of leaders we want, which in turn reflects the type of government we want to rule over us.

Exercise your right to vote next Monday. And do so wisely.

. . .

Some other points to consider:

• Of the five senators running for vice-president, four voted to convict Corona: Cayetano, Escudero, Honasan and Trillanes.

• Senators Estrada, Revilla and Ponce-Enrile also voted to convict; following the revelation of the "PDAF scam" in 2013, the three were charged with plunder and malversation of public funds alongside Janet Lim Napoles and five former representatives. 

• Only three senators voted to acquit Corona: Arroyo, Defensor-Santiago and Marcos; the latter two are running-mates in this year's elections.