(This post has also published on Yahoo! Contributor Network.)
Had the Chief Justice appeared the impeachment court yesterday only to walk out after all, he shouldn’t have come once and for all.
Competence of the impeachment court understood that what has been transpired was not a disrespect of the court but an anticipated excuse from the court on the Chief Justice understanding. The incident yesterday simply put it this way: no walk out happened, no any disrespectful act or omission, and no deliberate action as to challenge the honorable impeachment court. It was considered as an emergency call out of health condition.
What really had happened?
The Chief Justice, after giving his public enlightenment through his opening statement, only wishes himself to be excused from the witness stand in alacrity due to his health condition of mixed emotions at that moment—a condition that he, himself, knows it more than the presiding judge’s bang of a gavel.
The thinking public, the bias, the wait-and-see, and the judgmental spectator may quip with this only one suffocating question: what was the real score of this historic Day 40? It was a day of the Chief Justice vindication from the administration’s vindictive reproach and political vendetta and from the public’s scorn and bias, as well.
What are the implications?
Day 40 of the impeachment trial, marked and left the footsteps of acquittal of the Chief Justice from the bogus, concocted impeachment case, if and only if, the impeachment court decide within the bound and strictest sense of impartiality—that is, excluding those senator-judges who are desperate, unprincipled, and are so holy from within, which maybe describe Senator Franklin Drilon—he is incorruptible, infallible, and has so clean conscience so absurd for him to cast a verdict of conviction to the Chief Justice with the rest of the senators.
I maybe sound pessimistic of the Chief Justice acquittal, but this hopeful thinking spell out the fact that the impeachment case is 95% political, 0.4% legal, and 0.1% attitudinal. While the composition of the impeachment court comprises the largest chunk of political mechanism, the fraction of percentage comprising the substantial, the character, and the remedial aspect of the law, though negligible to observe with the naked eye of the public, would, indifferently, cripple the politics by the theory of chilling effect and the echo of the thundering truth after the historic incident on Day 40 of the Chief Justice impeachment trial.
Then what draws pessimism out of these facts? Only one thing: the Chief Justice on the witness stand broke his long been sleeping silence, which Aquino administration has been using it to the advantage of the few, including the tear jerking Hacienda case extreme disappointment. His silence has come to know the divided, the confused public, and the brainwashed few that what had been said and done by the puppet prosecution throughout the trial since Day 1 were bloated manipulations and desperation, infested of what the Chief Justice called it “fabricated charges”.
Was the Chief Justice appearance before the court significant or just pure drama?
The Chief Justice appealed to the public, which constitute as a witness statement, that there were only three reasons why he was impeached:
- Aquino-Cojuanco’s greed over the Hacienda Luisita celebrated case that is about to end after the Supreme Court decided in favor of the peasants who have been in almost 60 years of toil and labor abuse under the Aquino-Cojuanco “feudal system”.
- President Aquino’s greed of power to the extent of attempting to control the three independent branches of the government first attempted and succeeded in the Lower House of Congress, and the only branch impossible to influence is the judiciary and that this gave birth to the impeachment of the chief justice. What is most strategic to fully control the independent body is to first eliminate the most influential source of power within that body. Yet, Aquino made his greatest mistake impossible to forget by the freedom-loving and democratic Filipinos, including his late mother, Corazon Aquino, had she lived the present day.
- President Aquino’s ambition to remain as the chief executive of the Philippine Republic by gradual conditioning of the people on the system collaborated by both the left and the right factions of political greediness to take over the republic, democratic state of our country.
When history of the people’s struggle against the despotic leader during martial law is destined to repeat itself, this time around, it is, yet in the form of gradual conditioning of the people on the system Filipinos shall embrace it no choice.
Critical thinkers may retort that impeachment of the Chief Justice is one bold evidence of these manifestations. While others may quip that it is impossible, few are blessed to tell the world that, “Let it be, let it be!”
Now, the manifestation on Day 40 of the impeachment trial is extremely alarming; it is alarming to the Aquino administration because:
- Filipinos might have been enlightened as clear as the noon day sky that the impeachment case was politically motivated and directed by no other than the Aquino administration.
- Filipinos might have come to know that charges against the Chief Justice are cooked, cooked, and cooked to poison the public and persuade them from the alleged greed of power Aquino administration might be in dire need to fulfill it by any means.
- Filipinos might have come to know that the Chief Justice was a victim of outright disrespect for the rule of law and outright slap to the sanctity of the human rights provision uphold by the 1986 Philippine Constitution—the ultimate law of the land!
- Finally, Filipinos might have marked the Day 40 end of the impeachment trial acquitting the Chief Justice from the bogus, concocted charges.
On the contrary, some of us may think that what the Chief Justice has been done during his appearance in the impeachment court is tantamount to a verdict of guilty. Others may conclude that it was pure strategy, rehearsed, and scripted drama of the Chief Justice on the witness stand. But, consider putting yourself on the Chief Justice condition as victim-accused and witness of his own, you wouldn’t feel “alright”, would you?
However, looking at the human nature side, you can not face your own lies with that description of firmness, decisiveness to open the windows of truth, tact, and emotion amid the glaring Klieg lights and under public scrutiny, where all over the world come in witness of that spectacular addition to the Philippine history, can you?
Well, in relation to that, Ombudsman Carpio-Morales story is different. Remember that the Ombudsman has never, ever, confirmed the fact and the validity of her statements before the impeachment court, rather she just keep on playing safe, since she was under oath, by incessantly asserting and relying on the reports of AMLaC. Now, has you figured out the difference?
Then, what is the real score?
If the impeachment court is a court of truth, employing the most liberal use of the intertwining technicalities of the law to arrive nothing but the truth, then this court must uphold in subjecting the 189 lawmakers, including Senator Franklin Drilon, to a waiver pertaining the foreign currency law exposing them to a danger I may call “disguised” bad karma or more accurately, public accountability.
The principle behind is this: if you have the integrity, worth, reasonableness, fairness, and accuracy with due diligence as a father of the family committed to charge anybody else of a crime, sufficient to categorize it high crime, impeachable, and worthy of lifetime condemnation because of the provable nature of the probable cause, then you are more than ready, willing, and prepared to enjoin or bind yourself to whatever conditions that may lead to surface the truth at whatever cost and that may expose yourself to incrimination so long as the truth shall prevail.
However, if this would be impossible to uphold, then impeachment court must at full force render acquittal to the victim, to the politically harassed, abused victim!
Impeachment proceeding is NOT fishing expedition where in the process only can you establish the probable cause leading to conviction. Our Constitution never, ever put the state under its mandate to exercise the liberality of its power would-be. The only course the impeachment court to take is to uphold the independence of the judiciary as what has been the ultimate purpose of co-equality. No other heroic acts more heroic that upholding the independence of justice and subscribing fully to the absolute and non-absolute technicalities of the law where it must be deemed to be effected.
(This post has also published on Yahoo! Contributor Network.)
- Analysis: Ombudsman Carpio-Morales’ statements do not hold water
- Why shouldn’t Filipinos trust President Aquino anymore?
- Prosecution’s withdrawal only shows charges to be WEAK? ACQUITTAL of SC chief justice be rendered!
- Aquino vs. political dynasty: Will both regain possession of democracy Filipinos have owned?
- Analysis under the Constitution: Is having SOLE authority means having ABSOLUTE authority?
- 1987 Philippine Constitution DOES NOT GUARANTEE IMPEACHMENT COURT’S SUPREMACY!
- Senate’s decisions to deny appears mechanical and inconsistent!
- Senate as impeachment court: Political Partisanship looms!