Cold neutrality

Days prior to the filing of the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte-Carpio with the Senate, I saw an unbelievable explosion of social media. The number of posts showed that hundreds, if not thousands of our countrymen were all eyes and ears on the investigation conducted by the House of Representatives on the impeachment issues. Of course they were all speculations. Each claim to his own. On one hand, a deluge of condemnations surged forth. Presumably supporters of the administration of President Ferdinand R Marcos Jr., to them, Duterte-Carpio was doomed for conviction. On the other hand, there were numerous posts coming from perceived DDS followers claiming that the acquittal was a certain as the sun rising on the east.

A middle ground was also observable. If I were to ascribe any political color to this group of social media reactors, I had to suppose that they were neither Marcos loyalists nor Duterte people. Rather apparent from their posts was a perceptible stand that they would wait for the evidence that might be presented in the impeachment court and so they reserved their judgment.

We have to accept the fact that the ongoing impeachment trial against the vice president is one of the most polarizing event in modern Philippine history. It is fueling intense online propaganda from the two sides I have mentioned above. I hope to temper such increasing intensity with a favorite quote among lawyers - “cold neutrality of an impartial tribunal.” The Supreme Court, in a 1961 case, thru the pen of Justice Arsenio Dizon, took this quotation from Volume 30 of the American Jurisprudence. Our social media posters who are the virtual judges in this impeachment hearing must note that of the six words that compose this phrase, four of them namely COLD NEUTRALITY and IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL are worth more than re reading if only to understand a part of the concept of due process.

Those of us who want to post our thoughts on the impeachment proceedings, as virtual judges, must understand that “due process” demands that a judge hearing a case must be detached, disinterested and impartial. There is more. A judge must not only be unbiased but must also appear to be unbiased to maintain public faith. The profound words of Chief Justice Enrique Fernando say it all. “A judge has both the duty of rendering a just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner completely free from suspicion as to its fairness and as to his integrity.”

Basing upon the ideal of cold neutrality, I discern that two senator-judges are not impartial. I hope I am wrong. But, really the interjections, (a word used by the presiding senator-judge) of these two senator-judges do not appear to be unbiased. Rather, they sound more to be loaded on the side of the defense because their comments are seemingly designed to blunt whatever points are gained by the prosecution. In all, the legalese jargon they mouth has the posture of championing the defense. To me, the statements they utter are neither cold nor neutral. Certainly, their discourses do not meet the standard of impartiality. How damningly sad!