It used to be that impeachment hearings were a big deal in this country. Now it's all quiet banal, isn't it? Especially since the impeachment hearing of Vice-President Sara Duterte appears to be bogged down by technical gobbledygook, the kind of legal minutia that people all too familiar with the workings of the courts can only groan at.
How did we get here?
Way back in February, the House of Representatives sent the signed impeachment complaint to the Senate for hearing. The timing was awful. Not only was the complaint filed on the last day of the Senate's session, the midterm elections were coming up. One can only guess as to what the play here was. Did they hope to ram through the Vice-President's impeachment while they still had the numbers to do so? Did they have the numbers at all? Or was it meant to be a referendum on Duterte's political party? Perhaps the proponents of the impeachment thought that it would be a key issue that could draw voters to their side. Whatever the reason, it was clear that the Senate was going to sit on it until after the election, June at the latest.
The constitution mandates that as soon as the Senate receives the impeachment complaint, it must hold a hearing "forthwith". You don't need a legal scholar to tell you what the word means. Anybody can look up the meaning of the word under "f" in any dictionary. You know what also starts with "f"? Filipino time. Why do today what you can put off for tomorrow? Tsk, apiki na man, bai.
The impeachment of the Vice-President did, in fact, become an election issue. And the results of the election were interesting. The Duterte camp won slightly but nowhere near decisively.
When the senators reconvened in June, they were very disappointed to find that the issue hadn't magically resolved itself. Regardless, you would think that the Senate would be eager to hold the impeachment hearing anyway. Senators love to perform for their circus. They love to grandstand and they salivate for any opportunity to mug for the cameras. Yet, it became apparent that most of them were seized with a rare timidity. Why?
Politicians aren't stupid. Really. They're not stupid. They're smart in the way that matters in their particular field. One doesn't get into office without the acumen in navigating the uniquely awful political system in this country. To put it another way, Manny Pacquiao may have a room temperature IQ, but if you were to ask someone to teach you how to punch, who better than him? In our political system, you need a keen sense of knowing where the winds are blowing and strong survival instinct.
It's easy to guess why our senators don't want to go through with it. Survival instinct. The truth is that our senators love to bully people who are safe targets. Nobody cares if you browbeat the poor schmuck who's been suitably vilified by the administration and the media beforehand. They want safe targets. They want to perform only when there's a clear "go ahead" from the luxury boxes up top. In this particular case, there's no easy win to collect. Regardless of how you feel about the Vice-President, her party is still a force to reckon with -- a force enough to impose a cost if you go against them. Her daddy may be in jail and she and her siblings, collectively, may only be half as smart as daddy is but they're not beaten. Not yet. The recent election was proof of it.
Unable to muster the will to decide the issue, our senators decided that, instead of the usual ensemble performance, they were going to pull off a magic trick instead. In an unprecedented move, the Senate convened as an impeachment court, with red velvet robes and all, and forthwith decided to remand the matter back to the House of Representatives. Unhappy with the political football they were given, they decided to punt it back. Most found the ordeal anticlimactic and infuriating. I thought it was wonderful and hilarious.
We should have seen it coming. The moment they appointed the Senate President as the presiding officer instead of the Chief Justice, it was obvious they were about to do something amazing. No Chief Justice could have stomached the stunt they pulled.
Now the arguments. Does the Senate have the power to remand the impeachment complaint back to the House? Arguments can be made either way since the issue is so novel. Once the Senate convenes as a court, who's to say what it can and cannot do? On the other hand, the constitution mandates them to hear the complaint, not to issue interlocutory orders and other legal devices.
There will be arguments. There will be more arguments and still more. But more importantly, there will be no resolution. I think the plan is to procrastinate until June 30, when the new senators will assume their posts. What a relief it must feel for those outgoing.
When you're dealt a bad hand and you're unprepared or unwilling to stake out a position, there's no greater dopamine hit than a perfectly executed dilatory tactic. Who says these senators aren't good lawyers?
No comments:
Post a Comment