She could have been a better senator-judge

For all plausible reasons, I have attempted to avoid saying anything about the ongoing impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Renato Corona of the Supreme Court. I would rather leave it to the deep thinkers among my Constitutional Law students, to understand what is going on, than try to add my own prejudice to the flux of thoughts permeating our society. I feared that I could only worsen the fusillade of contradicting opinions. After all, in the midst of our individual and personal biases, I have observed that all of us are prisoners of our own perceptions much ahead of the final verdict.

But, what I witnessed last Thursday afternoon of the impeachment trial, choked me. Seated in front of the television, I was seized by varying emotions. I got numbed and speechless as I never had maybe because my tolerance level has, as I got to be a senior citizen, somehow, decreased. Well, really, was I angered and provoked, dismayed and challenged, embarrassed and agitated? Or was I simply saddened to see, in the impeachment tribunal, two personalities saying and doing things that I just could not decipher what for. How weird! I was hearing familiar language from two fellow lawyers yet ...

It is this eerie feeling that coaxes me to say something about the ongoing trial. Hoping to gain back my composure, I had to share with you my thoughts on a topic I earlier wanted to stay clear of. Let me speak more specifically about one of two of the known legal firmaments in the senate halls on whose discernment lies the acquittal or conviction of the country’s highest magistrate. I am referring to Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago. There is not enough space here for the other, Sen. Joker Arroyo.

I never imagined Sen. Santiago to hold her tongue. Silence, I must presume, is not one of her strengths. The impeachment trial is a rare occasion that calls for the display of her linguistic prowess, though acerbic, it, at times, be, and her legalpre-eminence. More importantly, this is her own turf where her light can guide those less skilled among her peers. Even to her detractors, her insights, nay incisive questions are expected more than her florid language and familiar outbursts.

Then, a verbal exchange between her and Atty. Arthur Lim, private prosecutor, ensued. Perhaps, prodded by mutual desires to explain contrasting positions, they tended to cut each other short. The senator had a term for it – OVERRIDE. And she said it quite explicitly with words like, “I am a senator-judge, don’t over ride me” or something to that effect. That’s what angered me. If she wanted the private prosecutor not to “over ride” her, she should, as a senator-judge, set the example. More. What if she is a senator, is it reason for her to over ride the private prosecutor? That’s what dismayed me.

Then, somewhere, the senator-judge asked what was the legal expertise of the private prosecutor. It might have stunned him because it was totally unexpected. Worse. Before the latter could answer, she expressed her information that he was a leading light in Maritime Law, as if to say, he was misplaced at the impeachment tribunal. His reply was not what the senator expected. He said that he was an expert of everything. Maybe because she was unprepared for the retort, she threw a most demeaning and vomiting remark: “What an impertinent answer!” That comment agitated me.

The body language of the private prosecutor showed it. He did not want to leave a question, no matter how uselessly embarrassing, unanswered. He obliged her with a reply. If, in the mind of the senator-judge, it was an impertinent answer, it was because the question was, aside from being completely improper, most impertinent. She should have known that, at the very least, her impertinent question begged for an impertinent answer!

The act of the senator-judge was, to skirt being cited for contempt, uncalled for. Well, really, it was distasteful. She missed the opportunity to show humility. Her vituperation failed to rank her a step higher in the delicate ladder of respect. The arrogance she displayed did not indicate the depth of the legal trainings and academic honors of the kind she would like people to know. That she could have been a better member of the impeachment court was what saddened me.