Dribbled

Lawyers, including those in the House of Representatives, are discombobulated and asking: what do senators think they’re doing?

Senate President Francis Escudero has been impressive enough in politics to be mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2028.

But as presiding judge of the impeachment court that has been convened to try Vice President Sara Duterte, “SP Chiz” is beginning to suffer from comparisons with the presiding judges of previous tribunals: chief justice Hilario Davide Jr. in the trial of president Joseph Estrada, and SP Juan Ponce Enrile in the trial of chief justice Renato Corona.

The chief justice heads the impeachment court only when it involves the president. So it’s the Senate chief who presides if it’s the VP and other lower ranking impeachable officials. But even certain people who admire Escudero think he’s in over his head in VP Sara’s case, and is making too many compromises in the name of political expediency. They think SP Chiz simply lacks the gravitas that can command deep respect from the senator-judges.

There are suggestions for the Senate to borrow Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo to sit as non-voting presiding judge of the impeachment tribunal, just to have someone who can exercise strong leadership and whip the senator-judges into line. It won’t happen, of course, but the suggestions indicate the level of confidence in SP Chiz as presiding judge of the impeachment court.

Those making the suggestions say the Senate needs an adult in the room. The situation has become a political tinderbox, and they say an impartial authority in law is needed – something that is lacking in this Senate.

Escudero cites the collegial nature of the Senate in approving compromises. These apparently include allowing senator-judges to effectively lawyer for the respondent / defendant the VP, after they had all been sworn in as supposedly impartial judges.

Certain senators, after taking their oath as judges, filed motions that even comprehension-challenged non-lawyers could see favored the respondent VP.

*      *      *

Vice President Sara can now be considered a respondent, with her office acknowledging receipt of the summons of the Senate impeachment court, ordering her to respond to the Articles of Impeachment.

The Articles were no longer officially read or presented on Wednesday at the Senate court – a technicality that may be challenged by the defense lawyers. Also, since the Articles were dribbled back to the sender, should the VP respond to the summons?

Escudero explained that the reading of the Articles normally heralds the official convening of the court. But since the Senate had already formally convened as such following the oath-taking of the 22 senator-judges on Tuesday, the formal receipt of the Articles on Feb. 5 by the Senate would suffice as basis for the summons sent to the Office of the Vice President, for the VP to comment on the charges.

VP Sara seemed certain that the trial would not commence on Wednesday, the last day of the legislative calendar of the 19th Congress. She took off for Kuala Lumpur ostensibly to celebrate Independence Day with overseas Filipino workers in the Malaysian capital.

Escudero said the summons sent to the OVP showed that the trial process continues. But at the same time, acting on a motion filed by non-lawyer senators, the impeachment tribunal remanded the Articles of Impeachment to the House of Representatives prosecution team, seeking a certification of the constitutionality of its transmission to the Senate on Feb. 5, and asking if the prosecutors wanted to push through with a trial that is sure to cross over to the 20th Congress.

On Wednesday night, the House approved a resolution certifying the constitutionality of its case (not yet received by the Senate as of yesterday afternoon). Who’s the congressman-prosecutor in his/her right mind who will say that, no, your honors, what we did was unconstitutional?

And how can members of the 19th Congress speak for members of the 20th, which has not started its session?

*      *      *

Escudero urged the House prosecutors to respect the order of the Senate impeachment court and just comply, claiming that the court is higher than the prosecutors. How about the senators respecting the Constitution and complying with their mandate?

There are videos circulating – with a viral one featuring Joel Villanueva and Imee Marcos moving to shut up Risa Hontiveros – as well as speculative reports that senators have conspired to drown out the voice of the minority.

Yesterday, the Philippine Constitution Association decried the events unfolding in the Senate. A statement signed for the Philconsa board of governors by its chairman, retired chief justice Reynato Puno, lamented: “The importance of accountability of public officials cannot be overstressed. Circumlocutory compliance with the Constitution destroys the rule of law which is the bedrock of democracy.”

Puno declared: “The Filipino people are watching. The Constitution commands it.”

The statement is welcome, although really, lawyers should learn to use layman’s language. We’re in enough mess as it is because a lawyer who was among the framers of the 1987 Charter used “forthwith” instead of “immediately” in the constitutional provision governing the holding of the impeachment trial.

The current chair of the Senate committee on constitutional amendments and revision of codes is Robinhood Padilla. If he’s accused of engaging in circumlocutory compliance with the Constitution, he’ll probably caress his mustache and say, “Sticks and stones may hurt my bones, but words will never hurt me!”

It’s not just Padilla. Other senators are thumbing their noses at those talking about public accountability and respect for the Constitution. Whether there will be a reckoning for them remains to be seen.

In the meantime, it looks like the House is laying out Plan B, in case impeachment fails to oust the VP: her criminal prosecution for plunder. This one, however, will have to wait for the retirement this August of the vanguard of opaqueness, Duterte appointee Samuel Martires as ombudsman.