Ending Before Starting

Let out a sigh, then another sigh, and another sigh.

When I wrote my article last week, I presumed the court convened for an actual trial. I thought that the prosecution would be given time to present its case. They would present their witnesses and evidence. The defense would cross-examine the witnesses. Then, the defense would present its case with witnesses and evidence. The prosecution in turn would cross-examine the witnesses. But I did not expect that the impeachment trial would be cut short. Heck, I didn’t even think that it was possible the that Senate could cut the trial even before it even started.

Could they do that? I guess, they could. They already did. So what now?

Does a punong barangay send back two feuding neighbors home? Does a regional court judge send a case back to the fiscal or back to the police? Does a grievance committee send a document of complaint back to the complainant? I could go on. Has the Supreme Court returned a case to the Court of Appeals without even hearing it? How does that solve anything?

According to the motion (the way my layman mind understands it), the articles are being sent back to Congress without dismissing it, for the Congress to certify that no same impeachment case can be filed in the same year, and that they (the Congress) are ready and willing to pursue the case. Uh, wait a minute. I think, the congressmen are pretty much aware that an impeachment case can be filed only once in a year. I think they already know that. Do they really have to certify that? On the second point, I think, when they filed the case and forwarded it to the Senate, Congress was ready and willing to pursue it. In fact, they have been itchingly anxious, ready and willing to start the impeachment trial since the start of this year. So, what’s the Senator talking about? But, the Senate President in effect, supported the motion. Then 18 of them voted for it. I sat back in resignation to the result, thinking to myself, so, there goes the trial. The day after exploded with negative reactions of the motion’s impropriety from lawyers, constitutionalists, congressmen, senators outgoing and incoming. Senators who voted in favor pushed back with their explanations about their decision. Strangely, the Senate President who in principle, should have been neutral in the division of the house, defended the “return to sender” motion. So, he was with it all along. Another notable thing is that the favorable reactions seem to come only from the Senators who voted in favor. The rest of the government and public largely don’t like what happened late that night. I’m sure there’s a mass of Dutert supporters among us. Maybe, media does not just give them fair exposure.

So, what can we do? The gavel has been struck down. It’s done. If the Senate is really doing it wrong, who has the authority to call them out?

They may explain it off with technicalities of constitutionality on the submission of the case and the Congress’ readiness and willingness. They may say that impeachment just brings disunity. One of them may say that the case should be filed in proper courts and not as impeachment. A regular spectator would get the sense that they (or most of those who voted in favor) didn’t really want to do it. For some of them, it has been expected and blatantly obvious. For some, it wasn’t as obvious, but quite apparent and logical. Yet, there were some positions that baffled our minds. They really didn’t want to do it, and they found a way not to do it. Behind the technicalities, it’s that simple. They are arguably, allegedly defending a particular personality.

I get it that one would want to defend a personality who they highly esteem. But, should not the trial be the ideal venue to prove on record the person’s innocence and integrity. Why not get on with it? Anyway, the Vice President’s legal team claims that they are very ready for an impeachment trial. Why chicken out from the actual fight? The trial would be the ultimate ring to prove who’s right, who’s wrong.

A friend who has been irate with the decision, told me that some senators are thinking ahead, forward to ensure their fates three years from now on the 2028 elections. This situation could be possible for those whose terms would end on that year, and intend to run for another term, and would want to secure the endorsement which would give them the highest number of votes. Furthermore, they could be starting to side with the strong contender for the presidency as early as now.

Let’s see what happens in July.

Romans 12:17: “Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.”