Crucified

When Sara Duterte warned that impeaching her would result in a bloodbath, she did not foretell that the first to be crucified is the Senate.

After two weeks of turbulence, the Senate of the Philippines now appears ready for the lance. It hangs in disgrace, barely alive. Its members are hopelessly trapped in irreconcilable factions. Public trust in the institution is in a nosedive.

The Cayetano-led majority that seized control of the chamber two weeks ago tries to assure us that the coup that happened is unrelated to the impeachment of Sara Duterte. To support that claim, the chamber was hastily convened into an impeachment court. A schedule for the proceedings was drawn up.

But the headcount tells us otherwise.

The Cayetano-led majority, the new Senate President included, is drawn from pro-Duterte partisans. If Sara is to be convicted by the Senate performing as an impeachment court, her enemies need two thirds of the 24-member chamber. Not one vote less.

Even if Bato de la Rosa remains a fugitive, unable to participate in the floor deliberations, the number required for conviction remains constant. As things stand, the pro-conviction side does not have the numbers.

The House of Representatives prosecution panel hopes that the senators, sitting as judges, will be swayed by the “evidence.” One member of that panel repeatedly uses the word “evidences” as if to emphasize the magnitude of what the House members bring to the trial – violating the grammatical rule.

They have the right to be hopeful. But the new Cayetano-led majority has scarce record of allowing evidence to get in the way of partisanship.

It is true that an impeachment trial is both a judicial and a political proceeding. In the last analysis, however, it requires a political decision. Conviction by an impeachment court, after all, implies a rejection of the votes cast to seat the public officer subjected to impeachment. In the case of Sara, this requires nullifying the 33 million votes cast to install her.

There is a reason why impeachment is a solemn and grave proceeding in a republican setting. Conviction involves repudiating the choice of the electorate. The justification for conviction is certainly of a higher order that the usual judicial proceedings.

If ever, Sara will be the first elected official to be convicted by an impeachment court. The Senate trial did not complete its job in the Estrada trial, intercepted by public outrage in the streets. It was the Supreme Court that declared his “constructive resignation” after senior government officials withdrew support for a beleaguered president elected by a landslide. This paved the way for his vice president to be sworn into the highest office.

The two other impeachment proceedings conducted over the past two decades involved unelected officials. Chief Justice Renato Corona was convicted by the impeachment court for what was later established to be spurious evidence. The process was also accompanied by charges of bribery of the impeachment judges.

Former ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez – drawn and quartered by pro-Aquino partisans for being a “midnight appointee” – resigned rather than face an excruciating trial. Another Supreme Court chief justice, Lourdes Sereno, was evicted by a “quo warranto” vote in the very court she presided over.

All the impeachment exercises under the 1987 Constitution were, therefore, settled by politics rather than by “evidences.” Excepting the Estrada impeachment, the rest involved the application of political pressure by whoever controlled government. In the case of Estrada, it is arguable that he was, in the last analysis, deposed by the equivalent of what Americans call the Deep State. He was, on two legs, an assault on the sensibilities of the elite.

In the present case, one might argue that Sara Duterte, like Estrada, violates the sensibilities of the entrenched elites. Her impeachment, whatever the “evidences” are, is ultimately a method for eliminating her from the list of potential presidents. This is a political – not a judicial – agenda if we set aside the hypocrisy that is always abundant among our political class.

The presently fragmented Senate is, for want of a better expression, divided into the Marcos and Duterte camps. In which case, the internal politics of this chamber condenses the polarization of the larger society. It is a microcosm of our warped little political universe where we have lost all means for cultivating successor statesmen – and where the impeachment process itself has been degraded into a tool of partisan warfare.

All things considered, it might be too early to conclude the impeachment trial of Sara is a settled matter. The current numbers might suggest that the pro-conviction bloc lacks the numbers for a two-thirds majority. But the members of the pro-Sara bloc are burdened by the fact that most of them are politically vulnerable.

Several members of the Cayetano bloc are under investigation for involvement in public works corruption. Like Bato de la Rosa, Bong Go might be subject to an ICC arrest warrant. A strange plunder complaint is being prepared against Rodante Marcoleta for accepting donations to fund his Senate run.

“Gapangan” is a frequently used word in Filipino politics. The closest English translation of “horse-trading” fails to capture the evocativeness of the Tagalog word. Nor its actual dynamics.

If the major political players think stopping Sara is important, they might want to trade concessions or part with some of their wealth to ensure a conviction.