Photo courtesy of Rappler

AS THE impeachment trial of former Chief Justice Renato Corona (AB ‘70, LLB ‘74) came to an end, so did the silence of many in the Ateneo community.

On the last day of the trial, both the Sanggunian and the Political Science Department released official statements on the issue.

In its statement, the Political Science Department welcomed Corona’s conviction. “The recently concluded impeachment trial was not only a victory for truth and accountability; it was also an effective exercise in strengthening our democratic institutions.”

The student political party Christian Union for Socialist and Democratic Advancement (Crusada) also released an official statement a few days later, expressing similar thoughts on the matter.

On May 29, 20 of the 23 senators of the republic found Corona guilty of Article 2 of the impeachment complaint filed against him, which charged him for failing to fully and properly disclose his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) to the public.

Last March, the Student Council Alliance of the Philippines (SCAP) conducted a survey in the Ateneo, which found that 41% of Ateneans distrusted Corona and 45% wanted him removed from office.

One issue, multiple reactions

The Political Science Department also called on the defense and Corona’s supporters to respect the Senate’s decision.

“We appeal to the defense panel and the supporters of former Chief Justice Corona to recognize the authority of the people’s elected fiscalizers and to safeguard the democratic gains achieved during the trial. The deepening of Philippine democracy requires utmost respect for constitutional processes.”

The Sanggunian stressed the importance of the SALN in its statement, which was released prior to the release of the verdict. “The SALN is an important document to uphold transparency and accountability among our public officials. The decision of the impeachment court will set a precedent for the comprehensiveness of other public officials’ SALNs to be filed in the future, as well as the level of transparency that our government is committed to demonstrate.”

While the Sanggunian recognizes the merits of the trial, it also noted its lapses. “We believe it could have been conducted in a manner more befitting the Filipino people, particularly in light of the time and money spent in order to facilitate it.”

Meanwhile, Crusada identified the “call for public accountability inseparable from the struggle for social justice.”

The statement read, “In a system where the citizens’ interests are assumed to be represented by their elected officials, responsiveness of such public officers to their constituency is necessary for democratic practice.”

Crusada further said, “[The] party contents itself with the belief that the removal of the Chief Justice from office demonstrates an implicit repudiation of the GMA presidency, whose legacy for Philippine democracy is questionable at best.”

“Precedence for future cases”

Sanggunian President Gio Alejo and The Assembly President Coco Navarro both find the result of the trial acceptable. The Assembly is the official political science student organization of the Ateneo.

Navarro said, “The truth about his assets tells the decisive direction of the event and his testimony bore the weight of his conviction. While plausible reasons were put to the table, it truly wasn’t enough to clear doubts on his innocence.”

Alejo echoed the statement of the Sanggunian on how the trial sets precedence for future cases.

He added, “I will agree with the former CJ’s challenge to other lawmakers to also sign their own waivers. Those who impeached him should come clean and prove that they, too, have nothing to hide.”

“Coronavela” rewind

For Navarro, however, the very beginning of the impeachment trial should be revisited as well. “The incumbent president’s goal to make public officials accountable and eradicate corruption is absolutely commendable, but should [processes such as the impeachment trial] be done with haste if fairness is to be sacrificed?”

She added that the initiation of the complaint is still dubious, remarking that the executive branch has yet to clarify how the signatures behind the impeachment complaint were obtained.

“Justice in the eyes of one man, even with a country behind his back, can never be above anyone else’s. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law. And this is the justification by which Corona can be and has been convicted with.”

Despite the many twists and turns in the so-called “Coronavela,” Alejo believes that the proper process was adhered to. “This is a testament to our growing political maturity as Filipinos,” he said.

However, the statement of the Sanggunian pointed out questionable actions from the defense and prosecution teams.

The Sanggunian said, “Statements were made on both sides with more of an eye towards grandstanding than towards calm, rational discussion of issues and principles, to the point that the event seemed more like a sensationalized media event than an honest quest for answers.”

Impeachment court and beyond

The Political Science Department believes that the unwarranted actions during the trial have not compromised the verdict: “While we object to various attempts on both sides to manipulate the trial process, we believe that the Senate’s decision reflects the will of the people.”

The department stressed the power of the impeachment trial: “May the impeachment trial be a reminder to government officials that the public’s vigilance and demand for accountability… remains a force to reckon with among those who wish to subvert our democratic institutions and perpetuate corruption in public office.”

Moreover, Alejo said that the different branches of the government should learn from the trial. He cited the Supreme Court which had already ordered all its justices to release their SALNs.

“If the president is sincere in saying that he was not personally attacking the [Chief Justice], then the same level of transparency should be applied to the whole executive branch as well,” he added.

“If the lawmakers were so strong in their conviction to impeach the CJ, they too should prove to the people they represent that there is no reason for them to lose their trust.”