By this time, it matters not anymore whether it was conviction or acquittal for the Chief Justice of the land. In the hearts and minds of the Filipinos, they know very well who was the winner and who was the loser. But more than winning and losing was whether or not we, as a people, have learned from the whole episode. The people know very well who was being truthful and who was trying to fool all the people all the time. What matters most now is that there were a thousand and one lessons to make us all wiser as a people. Many errors, wrong moves, and big mistakes, both strategic and tactical. And we need to have learned all those by now.
The first lesson is never to court the ire of the gods. In the language of my great great grandfather, Tatang Ino, “ayaw pag lud-i ang langit.” In other words, even if you are the chief magistrate, it is good for your own peace of mind not to cultivate a quarrel with both Malacañang and Congress. If the President expresses his dislike and even antagonism, The Art of War would tell you that you are not supposed to return fire with fire via trial by publicity. A tooth for a tooth is a discarded tactic in the Old Testament. Better to have offered a Trojan Horse, as a gift or to send an emissary with peace offering and negotiate a truce.
The second lesson is that if you are appearing in a court of which you are not the presiding judge, you are not supposed to antagonize the wise men and women in their own turf, for you know very well, that upon their hands, your fate hangs in precarious balance. If you have a health problem, you can tell them so. And instead of appearing very combative and adversarial, you are supposed to appear meek and humble. This was precisely done in the second coming of the chief, but then again, it might have been too late and too contrived. And more importantly, the first impression was more lasting. Perhaps, that faux pas cost the respondent some votes.
The third lesson was a fundamental rule in judicial conduct. If you are received by your host with much courtesy and even patronizing hospitality, you are supposed to reciprocate with utmost politeness and gentleness. If you are allowed to read your opening statement for no less than three hours, without interruption, you are not supposed to just walk out, based on the premise that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wishes to be excused. It must have been bordering in contempt to just leave the witness stand without waiting for the Presiding Officer to discharge you.
The fourth lesson is a very basic rule in trial technique. Any freshman law student would tell us never to present a witness whose possible testimony is unknown to the party presenting her testimony. The testimony of the Ombudsman, knowing fully well that “hindi sila magka alyado” was a very dangerous, even bordering on being a silly gambit. Her testimony damaged the respondent, no matter how the defense would deride her story as hearsay, she was clean, even a paragon of virtue, in the eyes of the common people.
The fifth lesson is never to bring a family feud into the issues of a pending case. Whether there was reconciliation via national television or not, it always gives the public a chance to speculate on the character of a man who is subjected to some very damaging charges coming from members of his own family. Most precisely because the main issue in the impeachment is money, a lot of money, such family dispute would generally tempt people to speculate on how the respondent treats relatives when it comes to money.
The sixth lesson is how to deal with “utang na loob” in relation to the President who appointed a sitting magistrate. As the Bible would admonish in relation to Pilate, it is not enough to be honest. The magistrate’s demeanor must be beyond reproach. And in relation to the incumbent President, if his family’s hacienda is subject to expropriation, via the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, it is better not to talk about it in press conferences, out of “delicadeza.’’ It is better not to impute bad motive on the part of a sitting President. For like the Chief Justice, the Chief Executive does enjoy some presumptions of regularity.
Lastly, and perhaps, most importantly, no matter who you are and whatever you do, whilst there are people who will always take your words, hook, line and sinker, there are other people who will never believe you, no matter what it is that you say. Whether you win or you lose, it is not the Senate or the people who will best judge you. The only competent and unimpeachable magistrate to make a judgment of your character is God and yourself. And the judgment is definitely final and immediately executory.