June 18, 2025 l Business Mirror
Impeachment in a democracy is for the protection of the people against “abuses of public officials” and a tool for checks and balance between the three branches of government.
The House of Representatives and the Senate can impeach and convict the Executive (President, Vice President), the Judiciary (even the Chief Justice) and even heads of constitutionally-created bodies like the Ombudsman and the Comelec. Members of Congress can, in turn, be charged by the Ombudsman and/or Sandiganbayan (appointed by the Executive). The President selects justices to the Supreme Court.
An impeachment process ensures no one is above the law in a democracy and, thus, prevents abuse of power. The process also serves as a guardrail to ensure performance and, thus, protects government resources (taxes from the people). When it serves to enhance government integrity and, hence, preserve public trust, it leads to public cooperation and social stability.
Moreover, impeachment appeases widespread public concern to reflect the “will of the people,” as in the case of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, where a survey indicated 8 of 10 Filipinos voted in favor of a trial. Duterte herself had, at the outset, said she was ready to face trial, and her team is prepared. It is a chance to clear her name, lest we forget.
Likewise, impeachment is not a “be-all and -end-all “remedy as in the case of the former President Joseph “Erap” E. Estrada, who “constructively resigned” with no decision from the impeachment court but was convicted by our ordinary court for plunder and sentenced to life imprisonment. His jail was his rest house in Tanay. And he was eventually pardoned by his replacement, President Gloria M. Arroyo (GMA).
Such a move to file criminal charges, as well, against VP Duterte has been brought up at the Lower House. Accountability, therefore, does not end with just the impeachment.
Impeachment status
Contending parties accuse the other of either “indecent haste” or “delaying tactics,” which is par for the course. Perhaps, what is most important is that the Impeachment Court has been convened, impeachment papers received, and the accused asked to answer summonses. The trial has begun.
Many people questioned the act of “remanding” the articles back to the House because senator-judges cannot do such except by the defendant. The defenders argue that it was a procedural matter—a “Solomonic” way out, if one wishes, to ensure that there are no legal irregularities in the procedure.
The first “remanding” demand was for the House to certify that it violated no Constitutional Law, specifically touching on “no multiple impeachments” in one year. While there were three expressed intens to file earlier, the House only accepted, received, and transmitted the fourth complaint. Thus, there is only one official complaint.
The second “remanding” demand for the House expressing intent to pursue such even unto the 20th Congress. That would be easy to answer in the 19th Congress and a probable reality in the 20th Congress since 80 percent of the House was reelected in the May polls and will therefore reflect the sentiment of the 19th Congress.
Nonetheless, we believe that any decision to allow or disallow crossover to the 20th Congress will lead to a referral for final judgment to the Supreme Court, since it is the final arbiter on impeachment cases. We are confident, however, that the SC will allow the impeachment to crossover, given precedents, because it is a continuing Constitutional duty and not a purely legislative function whose agenda is terminated with the ending of the Congressional year.
Since “remanding” is an unusual, novel step, the Presiding Officer (Senate President Francis “Chiz” G. Escudero) has been pilloried mercilessly for undue delay and bias for the VP. It might be helpful to recall that even Associate Justice Antonio Carpio had cautioned that whatever the outcome, the process should be within the bounds of law; otherwise, even the final consequence might be negatively affected. One of the Constitution framers, Adolfo S. Azcuna, likewise, opines that the remanding is unusual but not disallowed.
The procedure must always be lawful. We recall a story of a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent who caught and then tied a wanted terrorist to his bedpost while the FBI went to court to get a specific warrant for his arrest. Any evidence coming from such an illegal arrest was thrown out by the court, and the suspect was eventually freed. It was to ensure that the human rights enshrined in the 4th Amendment of the accused, regardless of whether guilty or not, must be respected foremost.
The act of “remanding” might be given the benefit of the doubt, considering the above context. However, there is no blame for its opponents, either, for them to slam this further delay, considering the great length of time the impeachment court had not been convened from the time the papers were transmitted in February.
The outcome
There is no telling what the outcome will be from the Senator-Jurors. Since the beginning, there have been obvious, individually expressed sentiments on the accused. By law, they should be excluded from sitting as impartial jurors. Be that as it may.
We have extreme confidence, however, that given the nationally televised exposure of the deliberations on the 7 charges against the accused, the senator-jurors will also be under pressure from public scrutiny, whether they will justly weigh the merits of the evidence when they vote. They know their political future will also depend on their fidelity to truth, justice, and fairness, or face future political damnation.
Just like the case of Justice Corona, where his previous majority supporters eventually deserted him, towards a 20-3 decision based on evaluating presented evidence. He was convicted.
In the case of Estrada, refusal to open an envelope caused the prosecution panel to resign and propelled People Power EDSA 2, leading to the massive resignation of Estrada’s Cabinet and prompting the president’s “constructive resignation” by leaving the Palace.
There is, therefore, no one way to skin a cat. And the ways of democracy are not always easy, but that is our democracy.
***The views expressed herein are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of his office as well as FINEX. For comments, email dejarescobingo@yahoo.com. Photo is from Pinterest.