4 hours ago
3
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
In the beginning was the word, and the word was forthwith. And on the corrupted meaning of that word has been hung a plot to manipulate justice, if not disregard it altogether.
The plot is being undertaken for the benefit of Vice President Sara Duterte, who has been impeached for the mishandling, possibly malversation, of taxpayer money in her charge. The plotters are a clear majority of the Senate, which, as prescribed by the Constitution, has formed itself into the trial court for her special case.
Categorized as “confidential fund,” the money in question, amounting to hundreds of millions of pesos, was a budgetary allocation to be spent at her discretion, but the House of Representatives found her to have crossed the legal limits of discretion and impeached her.
As the Constitution commands, the Senate ought to have tried her forthwith, meaning, by all dictionary definitions, “at once,” “without delay,” “instantly” — agad-agad in Filipino. Taking into account the potential for grave wrongdoing that goes with high office, the reason behind a speedier trial in an impeachment case than in the usual ones is prevention of further damage that the impeached official could cause if that official happened to be guilty as impeached, yet allowed to remain in office or hold public office ever again.
But the Senate president, Chiz Escudero, has chosen to play dumb to all that plain-enough reasoning and prefer to quibble with technicalities and trivialities. And with a majority of nearly 80 percent of the Senate behind him, he has been able to stretch the duration of forthwith to five months, so far.
Given the crystal clarity of the constitutional mandate and the unquestioned authority, until now, of Webster’s and Oxford, not to mention the near-conclusive findings turned up at the House hearings, Escudero and his fellow plotters have opened themselves to the ugliest suspicions. To be sure, they have been reaping the whirlwind, but not with such force as might in the least budge them. If anything, having been themselves appointed by law to a court of last, and only, resort, a court whose verdict, if it came to that, was not open to challenge, they seem to think they could do as they please, to the point even of not holding a trial at all.
That sense of power and impunity is most arrogantly reflected in Senator-Judge Migz Zubiri’s prejudgment of Sara Duterte’s case: “It’s a witch hunt.” But would he allow himself proven by trial and, as impeachment trials ought precisely to be conducted, openly? I guess not. A public trial risks public revelations, and public revelations risk a public awakening, and a public awakening risks a public response.
And judging by the public outrage provoked by the House hearings into Duterte’s case and the public approbation of the ensuing impeachment, a court protective of Duterte would feel reluctant to try her and allow all evidence and arguments to be deployed in full display. One long-awaited revelation is to do with Duterte bank accounts suspected of holding untold ill-gotten sums — a secret that can only be opened for all to see by order of the court.
Anyway, by simply turning itself into a court, the Senate may have technically satisfied the operating requirement, even without having to actually begin operating, without having to proceed to try Duterte. And to yet add insult to injury, Escudero, in what amounts to a false concession to those eager to see a trial, says not to worry: The responsibility for holding that trial has not been shirked; it will pass to the Senate of the next congress, which convenes before the month ends.
And here’s the catch: that new Senate will keep most of his cronies, either as holdovers like him or as reelected members, not to count first-timers who could be co-opted.
It should come as no surprise that, dispensed by politicians, justice could not but be tainted by partisanship, but the farce that the Escudero court has become is simply appalling, not to say uncorrectable; not even the Supreme Court, not at this point in any case, seems able to intervene.
Thus, the prospect of Duterte getting off is solidified. Meanwhile, taking her to the graft court for plunder alternatively and putting her in jail once indicted and keeping her locked up while on trial, as called for in that non-bailable case, remains a contentious proposition. The argument in her favor is that, not unlike the president, the vice president cannot be sued criminally, let alone jailed, thus kept from performing her duty as the second highest public official.
But what duty? The Vice President’s ranking is nominal, deriving merely from her being first in the line of accidental succession to the presidency, a “spare tire,” as we like to say. The commonsensical argument seems to me that immunity does not keep the holder of that office from any duty, in any case, any duty that cannot be relegated — in fact, Sara Duterte herself has been preoccupied with family duty since her father, the immediate previous president, was extradited to The Hague in March to face charges of “crimes against humanity” before the International Criminal Court for the tens of thousands of summary killings in his campaign against drugs. In fact, she has been away longer than in town.
But not to spare her protectors in the Senate: Is there anything in the law that punishes the likes of them, for willfully defying the Constitution and putting their conveniences and practicalities above public duty? In fact, there is, I’m told, and forthwith directed to the potentially applicable article (207) in the Revised Penal Code. “The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any judge guilty of malicious delay in the administration of justice.”
That penalty is from six months to two years in jail. How kind! But, as a beggar for justice, I’ll take it. – Rappler.com
