It’s about accountability

The provisions on impeachment in the Constitution are not in Article VI on the legislative branch, but under a separate Article XI, on the “accountability of public officers.” This should indicate the importance attached to accountability by the framers of the Charter.

Section 3(4) of Article XI states: “In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”

It’s a reflection of our level of literacy that we have redefined “forthwith.” Maybe the framers of the Constitution should have included a definition of terms in Article XI.

Section 1 of Article XI states: “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”

The last part alone, on “modest lives,” if applied, could decimate the entire national leadership. One look at the parking areas of the Senate and the House of Representatives would easily prove this. And we’re not yet even looking at the lawmakers’ pricey clothing, designer bags and shoes.

Accountability should be foremost in our minds as we watch the senators sparring over the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte.

We’ve impeached a president, a chief justice and an ombudsman, although only the chief justice was convicted and ousted in a trial. Joseph Estrada was ousted as president by people power, became mayor of Manila and nearly won a second term as president. Merceditas Gutierrez quit as ombudsman and kept her fat pension, and was even appointed by President Marcos to the board of trustees of the Government Service Insurance System.

Now here we are, still groping in the dark on the way forward in the first-ever impeachment trial of the Vice President of the republic.

*      *      *

After seeing Senate President Francis Escudero redefine the meaning of “forthwith,” we’re now faced with the prospect of senators voting not to proceed with trying an impeachment complaint forwarded by the House of Representatives.

Can senators turn their back on a constitutional mandate?

The excuse is that senators are of two minds on whether or not an impeachment trial that opened in the current 19th Congress can be carried over to the incoming 20th.

Shouldn’t they just go ahead and begin the trial (even if no longer forthwith from the filing of the Articles of Impeachment), let the 20th Congress continue the proceedings, and keep going unless stopped by the Supreme Court? The SC, whose members may be removed through an impeachment trial, may even decide to keep its hands off the Senate impeachment process.

This case being the first-ever impeachment involving the second highest official of the land, the issue is expected to end up in the SC anyway, with VP Sara’s lawyers bringing it to the High Court. Senators, despite their political alliances, are supposed to sit as impartial judges in an impeachment trial.

At the rate certain senators are shooting their mouths off about what they think of the impeachment, they should have the delicadeza to inhibit themselves in case the trial pushes through, for having already prejudged the case even before the presentation of the charges and evidence.

Inhibition in this case, however, is not a rule but a personal decision, so we’re not expecting it from anyone. And we might yet see the Senate plenary voting not to proceed with the trial.

This means the charges against the VP will have to be refiled in the 20th Congress, after the one-year period from the filing of the current complaints lapses. That period, according to the House secretary general, started upon the receipt of the complaints by the House justice committee.

As for the impeachment trial in the Senate, the proceedings officially started upon receipt by the chamber of the Articles of Impeachment from the House – which was way back in February.

*      *      *

Maybe Chiz Escudero is simply interpreting this sui generis case based on his appreciation of the Constitution and the Senate’s own rules. But he is being perceived to be stalling and trying to stop the trial and consequently prevent the VP’s ouster.

If the perceptions are valid, the question is why.

Escudero has become the subject of (mostly ugly) speculations, with nothing to do about public accountability. One is that he is courting the support of the pro-Duterte senators to keep his post as Senate chief in the 20th Congress. Or is he acting on behalf of President Marcos? This presumes that BBM truly finds no reason to get rid of the VP through impeachment, which in turn implies that BBM has no control over his favorite cousin the Speaker.

Another speculation is that Escudero is courting the support of the Dutertes (and the Mindanao / Visayas vote) for a possible run for the presidency in 2028.

Impeachment is a political process. But it’s also about accountability. Shouldn’t this be the primordial consideration of every member of the Senate? The higher the position, the higher the bar should be set for public accountability.

We already know the issues raised in the Articles of Impeachment filed against the Vice President. Doesn’t the nation deserve to know the truth and see justice rendered? Doesn’t VP Sara herself want a definitive ruling on her professed innocence?

It’s a one-of-a-kind event. This sui generis episode in our national life should be memorable for being good for the health of our society.