To impeach or not still a big question

Politicians just love shortcuts. The Opposition gets hold of a wiretap CD of President Gloria Arroyo conversing with her Comelec nominee at the height of the 2004 canvassing. With bootlegs of the CD but no solid proof of election fraud, they take to the streets for her resignation. Arroyo crafts a careful apology. Her foes interpret it as admission of guilt and step up their protests. Failing to rouse a decent crowd for an EDSA revolt, they switch to tedious yet Constitutional impeachment. Now rants Opposition Rep. Rolex Suplico that four Administration counterparts, whom he refuses to sue in defiance of law, have tried to bribe him out of signing for impeachment. An Administration rep hops into the fray, pleading anonymity but accusing Pagcor boss Efraim Genuino as well of suborning them. What gives, with imputations of crime that pols choose to take to the press than to court? Are these smokescreens for a half-baked, thus wholly useless impeachment rap?

They better not be. Sixty-five percent of Filipinos want Arroyo out. But 85 percent also prefer lawful impeachment. That rules out a junta or revolutionary council that fringes of the fractious Opposition crave. People desire the truth in lieu of slogans, due process instead of mob rule. Many of them may have judged Arroyo guilty of rigging her poll victory while some may wish her ousted for other reasons, but most elect to see justice take its course for a change.

Will impeachment succeed? Opposition opinion varies. Rep. Ronaldo Zamora, a bar topnotch who will head the prosecution panel, brags about writing more than a hundred charges to back the six bases for impeaching a President. Brimstone will rain on Arroyo Monday, he says, when she orates her State of the Nation while they file the bill of particulars. Senate Minority chief Aquilino Pimentel, a former law dean, feels otherwise. Impeachment is an Administration trap, he warns, for Arroyo holds Majority numbers in Congress to quash it. His House partner Francis Escudero, also a seasoned lawyer, is unsure of himself. As impeachment manager, he blows confident that Arroyo will hang for "cheating, lying, stealing." Yet like Suplico he riles against unnamed bribers, thus causing doubt if, sans squid tactics, he can muster enough signatures to send the case straight to the Senate for trial.

Escudero’s worry has to do perhaps with the complaint itself. While advertising his 100 charges, Zamora also has put up a website for angry citizens to submit evidence or enlist as witnesses. Too, he is pleading with the "Hyatt 10", Cabinet members who had abandoned Arroyo on the freaky Friday of July 8 when she almost fell from power, to tell what they know of her crimes. Romy Macalintal, Arroyo’s election lawyer, reads these as signs of weakness. "Despite their announced barrage of raps, they are still asking for details and testifiers," he chuckles, "which means they may have no case at all." The slew of charges also shows lack of focus. One well-founded case will suffice to impeach and oust Arroyo. Filing too many could be a mere second wave of Opposition publicity over prosecution, Macalintal opines. After all, they cannot use illegally extracted wiretaps as evidence, no matter how popular.

Escudero could be waffling over the impeachment rules as well. To be sure, the House has no rules yet. What it has is a draft, written mainly by Escudero no less. Yet it’s not in the Opposition’s favor. Administration Rep. Rolando Andaya Jr. explains why. The Constitution provides two ways for impeachment to prosper. The first is for the "appropriate committee", taken to mean as the one on justice, to endorse it to the plenary for majority vote. The other is for one-third of the House, in this case 79 of 236 members, to sign for immediate transmittal to the Senate. A fluke had occurred in the 2000 impeachment of President Joseph Estrada, to whom Zamora, Pimentel and Escudero owe fealty. The justice committee, then dominated by Estrada pals, had sat on the complaint for jueteng payola and tax theft. Complaining congressmen had to work behind the scenes to gather the required number of signatures, then only 76, to send the case to the Senate. They stalled at 74, until Speaker Manuel Villar defected from Estrada and, with 14 followers, pushed the number to 89. Drama followed. Villar opened the plenary with a prayer and, without missing a beat, went on to read the complaint and dispatch it for trial. Upon the election of the 13th Congress in 2001, Escudero sought to avert a Villar-type reprise by crafting a proviso that the one-third endorsers must still secure plenary assent. Arroyo’s present Majority may now adopt that very item to thwart an impeachment.

The Administration is not without its own shortcuts. After taunting the Opposition to take its beef to Congress, Arroyo allies counted the odds and saw impeachment a strong possibility. Her adviser Rep. Joey Salceda confided that the Opposition easily could get the 79 votes. So Arroyo this late in the day announced the formation of a Truth Commission that her erstwhile civil-society allies had suggested in June.

It is yet unsure who will comprise such body, what powers it would wield, or which truth it can dig up. Certain, though, is that it will coincide with and distract the impeachment. Too, that it will tread unconstitutional ground if it sets out to recount the 2004 votes. Only the Supreme Court, sitting as a Presidential Electoral Tribunal, may do that. And a complaining loser may file a case only within 30 days of the election.

The Opposition counts on one last shortcut. Overeager Majority men expectedly will stop at nothing to kill the impeachment. This could serve as the "second envelope"– evidence that senators had trashed during Estrada’s trial and which triggered a popular revolt that forced him to abdicate.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]