Majority rule

Indulge me a little in arguing my position on the current hot legal topic: the voting of the Senate impeachment court. I admit that I have no legal credentials, but like everyone, I do have my opinion on the matter, which many on social media are freely sharing.

Uniquely enough, I have the opportunity to voice my opinion through my column, and I admit that it is simply my own view.

My husband and I, like most other couples, have differing views about the legal interpretation shared by the four amici curiae.

He agrees with the interpretation of retired Chief Justices Artemio Panganiban, Reynato Puno and Hilario Davide, but I somehow agree with that of retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna that the majority vote of 16 must be adhered to as intended by the framers of our Constitution.

While I also tend to agree with the position of Panganiban, Puno and Davide, I also see the point of view of Azcuna based on my own view about our general adherence to the majority rule, which has been the quickest and most agreeable way to settle a dispute over who wins when it comes to decision-making.

We may not often like the majority vote, but we accept it as the best way to end a dispute.

We all know that it is always difficult to agree merely on who has a better argument. In the end, the last and quickest way to resolve an argument ends up with a majority rule vote, and not on a value judgement by each member of a group.

Thus, even in an election, we get to hear the pitch of each and every candidate and their values and principles, but the election process is decided by a majority vote.

A majority voting that, whether some of us like it or not, we live with it, Thus, our country chose former President Duterte and our current President Marcos — and even in the United States, President Trump.

And so, here we are.

Locally, we see why the majority vote brought us to this point that we have a President whose father’s legacy continues to cloud his tenure, and a Vice President whose father is in the Netherlands undergoing trial at the International Criminal Court.

The voting process is voluntary and does not necessarily restrict those who are in jail for less than a year and those who are still awaiting trial.

I tend to agree with Azcuna that if whoever is in power is allowed to manipulate and interpret the majority rule by imposing restrictions through detention or insisting physical presence in the Senate chamber, that person is basically distorting the intent of the law.

The 24-16 majority rule vote does have its flaws, but allowing a whimsical interpretation of the majority vote rule at every turn would be far worse because there would never be a fixed rule, in my opinion.

In a corporate setting, which also follows the majority rule vote, they allow remote meetings and voting so as to ensure proper voting.

Theoretically, If we allow a corporation to put restrictions on voting by its board of directors by always requiring physical presence and not allowing video voting at this time when the technology is now available, it would clearly smack of manipulation by management to always ensure that it gets its way.

If so, why even have an independent board?

Of course, we all know, just like in any grouping, there are always factions. But there are also safety valves in electing independent directors to ensure that they can neutralize manipulation of the voting process by members of a corporation.

Unfortunately, there are so many ways directors or members of a corporate board may be swayed, convinced or even coerced to vote for an opposing party or decision. That is the way life goes. There is always manipulation, but more so in a political setting. And that is where our current political stand-off is.

Perhaps the original framers of our Constitution, at a time when people were principled and educated, thought that all things and moral values would remain steadfast.

It has not. Here we are now, with an educational system that continues to deteriorate. Here we are where social media is where we mostly rely on news and what we hope is an unfiltered view of the majority.

In reality, though, social media is subject to algorithms that basically program social media feeds to provide similar content that interests the user. Thus, if the social media user prefers certain radical political views, it will most likely continue seeing such content that the user prefers, thus possibly distorting or skewing his or her view of an argument or event.

As we in the traditional print media have realized, the public now relies more on social media where they can immediately react and engage with their own opinions and views. And sadly, some social media users exceed the boundaries of engagement and become belligerent.

Digital media has, thus, increasingly become more popular by piggy-backing on social media platforms to gain more readership. Admittedly, there are increasingly better analyses posted on social media, not influenced by corporates, politics or advertising. But by the same token, social media has also been weaponized by some to promote their own radical views.

Social media has become a forum for frank discussion.

But on the negative side, the lack of verification and adherence to rules governing libel and privacy, are some of the dangers of social media news reporting.