Absurdity of Ombuds impeachment Senate trial - II

Take note that Senator Guingona as Blue Ribbon chair has already publicly exhorted Gutierrez to resign to spare the country from the turmoil of the impeachment dispute… Hence, he and the 13 other senators ought not to sit in judgment anymore on whatever related issues recommended by the House against the same respondent Gutierrez.

Otherwise, where is the principle of impartiality or objectivity, or the freedom from bias or pre-judgment? These senators can not simply excuse themselves from such perceived predilections on the flimsy ground that their finding for Gutierrez’ impeachment is anchored on a different cause of action. The point is, their “target” is the same Ombuds Gutierrez.

Should such scenario come up, one way or the other, on the matter of moral and ethical standards that spell justice and fairness for a respondent or accused, the Senate ought to avoid any judgmental role, no more. Whether they acquit the Ombudsman or convict her, may place the senator-judges in serious absurdity.

Parenthetically, suppose the House articles of impeachment were so exhaustive or all-embracing as to cover, say, “culpable violation of the Constitution”, and/or “other high crimes”, and/or “betrayal of public trust” against Gutierrez, could the Senate still decide on the “betrayal of public trust” aspect, considering its Blue Ribbon prior findings on her role vis-avis Gen. Garcia’s plea bargaining with the special prosecutors before the Sandiganbayan?

 Or, what happens when eventually the House articles of impeachment do include that plea bargaining aspect of betrayal of public trust, in conformity with the Blue Ribbon’s finding? Further, assuming arguendo that the House articles of impeachment would not include “betrayal of public trust”, could the Senate at whatever stage this year, recommend that the Lower House should “initiate”, again, that particular cause of action?

 Despite Senator Gringo Honasan’s trust in his colleagues’ impartiality as senator-judges – his term – Senator Guingona as Blue Ribbon chair, and other Senators, like, Senator Jinggoy Estrada, or Senator Drilon, or Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, to name a few, had been pointedly vocal and ballistic against Gutierrez during her grilling in the Blue Ribbon hearings.

 And so, how can credible impartiality be expected in the Senate trial? Human beings as they are and, considering their deportment in the Blue Ribbon hearings, it’s the height of incredulity that they be shorn altogether of some bias or predilection. And even if they be like mechanical robots sans human feelings, there’s no verisimilitude at all, even if it were fiction.

 One is perplexed that the Blue Ribbon conducted hearings when the House also did theirs. Common sense or circumspection didn’t need some sharp foresight that the Blue Ribbon should have refrained from touching the hot topic which later could be brought before the Senate to try and decide, as the Constitution mandates.

 One also wondered why such delicate angle was beyond simple forbearance, if only to be spared from a probable congressional impasse. Precisely, one is also intrigued by whatever is the tenor of the nine senators signing “with reservation” the Blue Ribbon report for the Ombuds impeachment. Does it free the 9 from possible challenge on partiality, or bias, or pre-judgment?

 Assuming again that the nine could objectively participate and judge in the Senate trial, say, to convict the respondent, could the two-thirds vote be ultimately harnessed out of the present Senate membership?

 And perhaps, it wouldn’t reach that stage of indecision or impasse, as in a “hung jury” under the jury system of dispensing justice. It could be anticipated that the respondent may, before the inception of the Senate trial, raise the unconstitutionality, or the legal absurdity, of the Senate to try the case with impartiality and clear objectivity where 14 of its members have already previously pre-judged the case.

* * *

Email: [email protected]