There is no dearth of material source for writing on the impeachment of CJ Corona. There is as much dirt as there is much dearth of clean surface to write on. Those who have time say their pieces of criticisms or defense and vent their anger as emails to media and as feed to the internet. As yet, there is no tower of Babel, only quagmires of confusion. Whether and when the quicksand of public opinion will finally sink the impeached CJ into the oblivion of his own making, this piece profess no clairvoyance. The material as the cliché goes are all over the place: in the twitters and facebook, in emails and blogosphere, in tabloids and broadsheets, over the radio and as TV shows.
As matadors deftly play their capes with their bulls, so it is with lawyers toy with the laws in defense of their clients. But it becomes another story when non-lawyers or Miron or Publico join the contest because it seemed to them it is their money from the taxes they had paid which is really the bone of contention.
Like in a corrida the audience watching the matadors are in awe how the bulls can be made dizzy by skillful passes. Ordinary citizens and non lawyers saw it clearly enough. From the beginning defense lawyers had claimed there is no case for impeachment because after the House of Representatives had impeached the Chief Justice by 188 votes almost double the number required by the constitution, that is nothing to the defense because it was hurriedly and superficially done. The Lower House of Congress had already violated the rights of the Chief Justice even before the start of the impeachment trial by the Senate.
The Impeachment Court said No and the trial started. For a few weeks the trial proceeded tortuously and the prosecution lamely had rested their case. And when it was time for the defense to counter the arguments and evidences presented by the prosecution, they demanded again the Impeachment Court to stop the trial citing the old tune of illegal and hasty preparation of the case. Rebuff again, the defense panel proceeded with the presentation of their witnesses to accomplish the opposite of what they promised to do. That they will dispel the lies attributed to the Chief Justice; confute, disprove and remove all reasons alleging unfitness of the sitting Chief Justice to his position.
What the people heard and saw on TV, what they read in newspapers and heard over radio and for which many had been vociferously critical was that the defense had tried and is still trying doubly hard to stop the trial for the wrong reasons; had consistently attempted to exclude damaging items of impeachment; defense in all moments of opportunity tried to suppress presentation of evidence; and where it cannot, it tried to declare all portions irrelevant or immaterial to the case; where the above also fails, it confidently asked the court that the testimony be stricken out of the record.
What some people saw was a demonstration of skills and knowledge, mastery in the court room practice of law, an almost flawless performance suggestive of blatant obstruction of justice, than an upright and proper defense of the rights of the accused. Some people might be led to ask: Is this what the lawyers learned from the classrooms from their professors? Subterfuge? Is this the true to life world of dispensing justice or injustice?
To the ordinary citizen and non-lawyers, the prosecution lawyers must always be on the side of the state, on the side of the people if not on the side of victims. They and their families’ sustenance and leisure are paid for by the people and the State. The observation which sometimes developed into strong expectation is that the prosecution shall act with knowledge and skills, diligence and determination to win their case, help the judge convict and punish the guilty.
Where a wrong was done on a massive scale, the people expect of the prosecution to demonstrate no less than an extraordinary resolve to win the case for them. The impeachable are few, impeachment are far in between and involves only the high and mighty so they are potentially capable of inflicting heavy damage to society. Against them the prosecution should be made of sterner stuff.
But what can the people say with the performance of the Congressional Prosecution Team. What did some of the senator-judges say about them, the treatment they receive from both the defense panel and the senator-judges, and from both the supporters and critics of the accused: the sink was thrown at them, after, like babies, they were thrown away with the bathwater. Some people understand they can be out of their water and can’t take the high ground.
When it is not so clear, where the gray area between a criminal trial and a political trial is very wide and fuzzy and when there is no law providing clear-cut rules, the impeachment court enjoys the leeway to switch the rules and invoke their application to suit their judgment. There must be a law operationalizing the conduct of impeachment as mandated by the constitution. As a routine function Congress conducts regularly all sorts of investigation in aid of legislation. If no one in Congress has thought about it yet, the impeachment of the CJ is right under their nose. But as they already know, any law of their own making could reduce what now they enjoy as their discretion.
Any which way the trial goes, there ought to be a law enacted to prevent a repeat of the convoluted scenes in this expensive comedy.