Messy

Despite an orderly proceeding inside the impeachment court, thanks to the capable handling by its Presiding Officer, the Corona impeachment case has become one big mess. And this is because there is another trial going on outside the halls of the Senate which apparently is not bound by any rules. So many side issues and loose talks which do not have any direct bearing on the case are now floating around and causing a lot of distraction not only to the Senator Judges but to the rest of the citizenry who already form varying conclusions of facts that have sharply divided the country.

The case has sadly degenerated into a propaganda war between the main protagonists in the persons of none other than PNoy, the Chief of the Executive Department, and Corona, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who heads the Judicial Departments of our government. This is the first time indeed in our country’s history when the heads of the two main branches of government have openly engaged in a very destructive struggle where the biggest losers are the people they are supposed to serve, their “boss” according to PNoy himself.

Needless to say the outcome of this war depends on which side has the more superior machinery and wherewithal to shape the public opinion in his favor. And obviously PNoy has the distinct advantage here, what with the vast resources at his command plus three Malacanang agencies handling his communications and public relations affairs. This advantage is clearly demonstrated by the manner in which two side issues in the case have been treated by the media.

The first one, which is very damaging to the prosecution, involves the mysterious “small lady” who allegedly handed Corona’s bank documents to Representative Umali, and the unknown “postman” who left said documents in the mail box of Representative Banal, Jr. With our very resourceful and nosy media composed of investigative journalists, the unraveling of this mystery should have been pursued to the hilt as it will determine whether the evidence was obtained through illegal search and seizure and therefore inadmissible for being “fruit of a poisonous tree”. But as it turned out, media chose not to dig deeper into this angle and forgot about it, a clear indication of the administration’s clout on the Press people.

The second one involves the bitter and seemingly endless feud among family members, one of whom happens to be Corona’s wife. Even after the prosecution has rested its case, this feud is being exposed in media with its juiciest details especially on Corona’s involvement as a husband fully supporting his wife’s alleged unfair and unjust treatment of other family members. The link of this feud to the impeachment charge mainly concerns the source of the funds supposedly deposited in Corona‘s account which may even explain the discrepancies in his SALN regarding the amount of his bank deposits, but media is concentrating more on the family feud picturing Corona’s shady character and lack of integrity expected of a SC Chief Justice which has nothing to do at all with any of the three Articles of impeachment.

Also quite weird and ridiculous in this impeachment case is the administration’s reaction to Corona’s latest media blitz. While it is alright for PNoy and the prosecution panel to air and publish conclusions of facts and of law finding Corona already guilty of the impeachment charges even while the trial is still going on, they are now claiming that it is improper and unbecoming of Corona to air his defense and to publicly refute and show the error of said conclusions of facts and of law even prior to his presentation of evidence before the impeachment court. Why can one party use an apparently unfair tactic while the other party cannot? This is really absurd.

There are indeed so many revelations and realizations arising from this big mess. First of all, it has shown that we have not yet found a true leader, a real statesman who will unite our people and rule without partisan political considerations. We are still looking for a leader who will rise above all the current political bickering and take an impartial stand on several issues dividing the nation.

Secondly, we now realize that our leader is still engaged in transactional politics mainly based on quid pro quo where favors are given in exchange for favors obtained. No amount of explanation can indeed erase the impression that giving juicy government positions to close relatives of the prosecution panel members is a form of reward or payback for kowtowing to the administration’s wishes. No amount of denial can also erase the impression that some kind of deal was made when the President secretly met with the Chief Justice or when a Senator had lunch with him allegedly to discuss a form of term sharing; or when another Senator sent an emissary threatening him to resign or he “will be stripped in public”.

Thirdly we now see that we have no leader yet who looks at anything apparently wrong as wrong even if committed by people close to him; who applies the presumption of innocence even to people whom he believes are really guilty by allowing the due process of law to take its course. We still lack a leader who will abandon the same old tactics used by the previous administration of getting things done through sheer use of political power rather than through careful, deliberate and meticulous building up of air tight cases that will ensure the achievement of its avowed purpose of reforming the government and fighting corruption. In short, there is still walang pagbabago.

Fourth, this big mess has revealed to us that there is much to be desired in the character and integrity of people in the judiciary including the Chief Magistrate. Apparently we cannot say that the incumbent CJ, with his background, squarely fits into the honorable and prestigious position he now holds; that there are others who may really be more qualified. It cannot really be said that we have a CJ who deserves the peoples’ full trust and confidence. It cannot really be said that we have a CJ, who has a real sense of delicadeza for accepting the position through an appointment which is generally considered as a “midnight appointment”.

And so much depends now on the Senate as the impeachment court to get us out of this mess by heeding the call of its Presiding officer at the start of the trial to “clearly and diligently examine the evidence and the facts to be presented before us and to determine whether such evidence and facts sufficiently and convincingly support the charges”.