It has been more than a decade since the last bid to impeach the highest-ranking official of one branch of the Philippine government. Whereas the executive branch melted in the spotlight in 2000 for former President Joseph Estrada’s alleged shenanigans, the judiciary now faces the blinding lights of media, as Chief Justice Renato Corona takes his turn sitting in front of an impeachment court.
Four grounds for impeachment were filed against Estrada, while a whopping eight grounds have been thrown at Corona. It’s easy to judge the gravity of the impeachment cases by the mere number of complaints, but that would be myopic. It’s the strength of the grounds individually and collectively that surely matter.
Sketchy appointments pique curiosity and even suspicion. Corona’s acceptance of the midnight appointment from former President Gloria Arroyo led to a lack of judicial transparency and stealth in government transactions.
Next, Corona’s statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth might have finally been disclosed, but the prosecutors have found that there was inconsistency in the figures. Problematic, too, is the inherent bias in presenting the data. Absent from mention are his stints in the Development Bank of the Philippines, as well as the Commercial Bank of Manila, which could explain some of his assets, but not all. This could probably just bring his transparency and honesty issues to a whole new level.
The main complaint on flip-flopping might have drawn flak for the lack of decisiveness and disregard for immutability, but people do err and sometimes, the better decision could come late. What could be unacceptable here was the possible changing of decisions without due consultation, confidentiality and objectivity.
The fourth complaint on hasty decision-making might be tricky. The accusation of power encroachment may be challenged by the right of the Supreme Court to overrule when power abuse by the House of Representatives seems apparent.
The fifth and sixth complaints, however, are based on legitimately solid grounds. Partiality has no place in a court of law and defies the principles of res judicata, while the sixth complaint, although loaded in its phrasing, falls as an unethical act upon further analysis of the formation of committees and the investigation procedures involved. The seventh complaint against Corona is certainly a matter of a breach in protocol, and definitely points out the internal weaknesses of the judicial system. The eighth complaint is weak as an argument, and rather than addressing an issue concerning Corona, questions the reliability of the government’s implementation of budgetary procedures and fund transparency.
It would be difficult to say that the impeachment procedures are unconstitutional. After all, provisions in state legislature provide Congress with the power to do so, under certain offenses. Was there sufficient grounds to do so? The arguments stand strong together, but not every argument is strong enough to stand on its own.
Consensus has not yet been reached in the present, with the trials ongoing and both prosecution and defense failing to reach substantial progress. Despite these, justice must be served, especially when we consider Corona’s stature as the figurehead of the justice system in the country.
More than just the future outcome of the impeachment, though, it would be a great deal if the more substantial grounds for impeachment were those that could lead to the serving of social justice and would let the Filipino people see that the truth will always prevail.
