The Philippine Online Chronicles

The defense panel in the impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Renato Corona should better exercise extra care in seeking the inhibition of any of the Senator Judges. Otherwise, a pattern may be detected.

For all political intents and purposes it has to be realized that the senate is composed only of 23 members. If, at every situation a senator is charged of a certain degree of bias, there will come a time that the senate will no longer have quorum.

Imagine if at every time a senator-judge is to participate a motion for his inhibition is granted. Time will come when either the defense or prosecution panels would use the same strategy or a tool to destabilize the nation by rendering the senate inutile as an impeachment court. The senate as an impeachment court cannot be likened to the supreme court  (SC) as a collegial body. Among the distinctions are:  SC Justices are not elective officials. Senators have fixed terms of office; and the justices have security of tenure and with a specific age of retirement. Senators, even without having been proven to have committed a wrong doing, may be removed from office and by not simply being reelected or having already graduated because of the limits set forth on the maximum number of successive terms.

On the other hand, SC justices can only be removed by impeachment. Besides, by being a collegial body, the SC can even function as a division in certain instances. The senate has no divisions where one may seek the inhibition of an individual member.

Even individual judges of the trial courts could be asked to inhibit on valid grounds. In fact, some judges, out of delicadeza, opt to inhibit if asked to do so, to avoid any suspicion of bias. After all, the case can be assigned to other salas or to the pairing judges. Such situation does not obtain in the senate as an impeachment court. So, right or wrong, fair or foul, the senator-judges will have to decide in the impeachment cases before them using as their main tool, hopefully, a clear conscience, and guided by the constitutional precepts on due process, as well as the time tested rules of fair play.

Just because a senator judge propounds a question tending to elicit the truth on matters relevant to the issues-particularly in reference to the purposes for which a witness is being presented, is no sure indicator of being biased. Who knows he might even shift sides, depending on his judgment given that an impeachment proceeding is primarily a political exercise.

The more difficult to read members of the senate are those who do not talk. One would not even know what is in their mind. Another factor that bears watching is when one pretends to know when he does not. He is a very difficult to read decision maker especially when resort to gut feelings is done. For as long as the senator—judges continue to show serenity and sincerity of purpose in championing the cause of the rule of law, there is no cause for alarm.

The defense panel should not dismissively consider the reality that they too will have the responsibility of adducing evidence for respondent Chief Justice Corona and the difficulty as well as embarrassment the prosecution panel is undergoing may also shift to them. The truth is, it is relatively easier to conduct cross examinations, for the reason that on direct examination, leading questions are prohibited, generally speaking.

Once that situation arises, are we to understand that the senator—judges who take part in the proceedings are to be perceived as favoring CJ Corona? As a follow up, will the defense not serve as an apologist for a senator-judge trying to ferret out the truth? They should not be overly suspicious. Rather they should be ever vigilant in seeing to it that justice is done, without need of hiding behind the cloak of technicality and masquerading as disciples of due process.

Photo from Philippine Senate photo release.