Duterte Impeachment No. 3

Note: yesterday the Senate sent back BIR records previously sent to them.

 

I enjoyed Paolo Tamase‘s observation that impeachments are getting increasingly “judicialized,” something I happen to feel strongly about. This goes to the heart of my assertion that neither the Senate as a whole or senators, individually, are required to be lawyers to hold an impeachment trial and reach a verdict. The moment things becomes a lawyer’s game the further you get from what an impeachment is supposed to be: the resolving of the fitness for office of an accused official.

 

 

The day began with anticipation over the Vice-President’s expected appearance at the Senate –it turns out, to hold a presser but not to attend her trial. She gave vent to the usual blood-curdling rhetoric, and featured what can only be called her Joan of Arc look. The presser reminded me of the campaign trick of dropping by a radio station to give the impression you’re visiting the locality –when all you did is drop by the station (an Arroyo-era survey showed that as far as the public is concerned, appearing in local media is the equivalent of a full-fledged campaign sortie as far as people thinking you visited them is concerned).

 

Interestingly, Panfilo Lacson rose to challenge some assertions of Escudero as presiding officer of the Court: on the question of 16 senators needed to convict, and anyone disagreeing having to challenge it in the Supreme Court –was it an opinion or a ruling by the chair? Because it could invite either party to ask the Supreme Court to intervene. Escudero said not was a ruling and could be a justiciable controversy since not objected to or appealed by any senator at the time.

 

Here Escudero seems to conform to a consensus on what a plain reading of the Constitution suggests. Cayetano pointed a case is already pending before the Supreme Court on this “threshold issue.” So as of today, the stand of the impeachment court is 16 votes are needed, and that membership is only changed through death, final judgement, or resignation.

 

Lorna Kapunan sounds surprisingly kind and gentle. She asked the court to ask the defense, if the Vice President was in the premises, did she intend to appear before the court? And her follow-up: related to Tuesdays being devoted to enumerating witnesses to be called, to give time to the court to issue summons. One of the hostile witnesses the House Managers want to call is… the Vice-President. Rather than direct the question to the defense, the chair ruled that defendant is not obligated to attend her trial. If the House Managers want to ask for the Veep to be called as a (hostile) witness, let them do so and it can be discussed then. Alan Cayetano wants both sides to submit memoranda on whether you can force testimony from the accused.

 

Lorenz Defensor is at bat to lead the House Manager team for Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment. This seems to be, in their opinion, the most open-and-shut charge: by threatening the lives of the President. the First Lady and the former Speaker.

 

The defense in yet another Estelito Mendoza moment, objected to the House Managers making their introduction: “They are telling a story!” Boo hoo. The House Managers properly reminded the defense this isn’t a strict trial. Defensor handled the interruption calmly and politely. Escudero put his foot down when the defense lawyer Carlo Narvasa, tried to object further.

 

Amando Ligutan rather bombastically proceeded with the presentation of their first witness, an NBI agent. (Honestly: just read the damned oath and let the witness say “I do” or “I don’t” and leave it at that). Anyway long wrangling provoked by the defense. All I was looking for was proof by the House Managers that the Vice-President contracted an assassin: without. that all she’s guilty of is intemperate language. The blizzard of objections by the defense as to exhibits only serves to delay the proceedings, bore people, and blunt the impact of whatever it is the House Managers were trying to achieve.

Carlo Narvasa and his pursuit of the Great Nitpicking occupied the rest of the day.

 

The whole mind-numbing afternoon returns me to Tamase’s comments. There could have been a hearing, orderly, fair, with basic rules, but instead leaving it in the hands of the lawyers its become a contest killing the very objective of the process. Someone ought to put their foot down and lay out what “supplicatory” is supposed to mean and to what extent otherwise it’s this war of attrition on the basis of boring the public to death.

 

But you have to hand it to the defense: it’s war of attrition started making the House Manager’s counsel start losing his cool by late afternoon (by 5pm Ligutan was already getting ill-tempered, but so was Escudero, it’s helpful for the defense to make the House Managers pikon, but counterproductive to annoy the presiding officer).

 

Eventually after all the delays the video was shown which proved a dud. It has no shock value. Nor, personally, do I think it makes a case one way or another other than the Veep is true to her family branding. I hope they will then show evidence of a contract being taken out and money changing hands, otherwise…

 

Next Article, please!

 

Postscript:

 

There was a strong reaction by Pia Cayetano to Risa Hontiveros asking the House Managers if the testimony proved an impeachable offense, and an oration by the (now extremely tired) Atty. Ligutan which Cayetano angrily denounced as a premature closing statement (after angrily taking exception to Hontiveros’ question). Escudero was inclined to give the defense equal time to get their word in considering that he (Escudero) felt that Hontiveros’ question was premature and he explained why.

 

A lawyerly interchange but the points were already made and Cayetano’s demanding the House Manager’s statement be stricken off the record is pointless. Hontiveros responded that her question was in aid of appreciating the evidence, but she stands by her question.