Impeach and scream

To the delight of the guys down here in my barangay, the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona suddenly brings about lofty notions like “democracy” and “independence,” not to mention “fairness” and “justice.”

As we all know, 188 congressmen signed the “eight” articles of impeachment against Corona.

Pro-Corona commentaries in newspapers and in the Internet accused our leader Benigno Simeon (aka BS) of railroading the whole thing by using his political clout in the House.

The House needed only about 100 votes to impeach Corona, and yet 188 congressmen signed the articles of impeachment. The Liberal Party (the political party of BS) had only 85 congressmen.

BS must have done some heavy “railroading” to get more than a hundred other congressmen outside his party.

Down here among simpleminded folk, we know that impeachment is a constitutional process and to make any such process move ahead, you must have somebody pushing for it, preferably one that can make those congressmen listen and act—somebody with political influence.

Without using his political clout, how else could BS have done it, or anybody else for that matter, by praying to all the saints or by crying in the bathroom?

*  *  *

After the House “railroaded” the impeachment, it was the turn of Corona and his camp (mainly Supreme Court spokesman Midas Marquez) to attack BS.

Corona’s camp held a screaming rally—a la Plaza Miranda in the 1970s—calling BS a liar and dictator at the top of their voices.

It was clear that the Corona camp sought to get the entire judiciary, if not the rest of the country, behind the Chief Justice, short of doing a protest march all the way to Malacañang via Plaza Miranda.

They claimed the accusations of BS against Corona were unfair. (“fairness” is one of the nice words that suddenly become in vogue in this exercise.)

Not only that, to the Corona camp, the impeachment was an attack on the independence of judiciary. (“Independence” is another fashionable word nowadays).

Other groups came out with press statements, which were also flying all over cyberspace, citing some legal niceties about the impeachment of Corona.

One of them said BS himself came out attacking Corona, even initiating the impeachment, because BS did not like the decisions of the Supreme Court. It was noted that the Supreme Court decided on those cases as a collegial body. The decisions were not the work of Corona alone. In short, why did the House impeach only Corona?

I am not certain those groups were actually agitating for the impeachment of some more Supreme Court justices, but it is possible.

Anyway, they also said that when the Supreme Court decided on those cases, the body was only “interpreting the law.” The argument goes that, by voting in favor of Corona’s impeachment, mainly because of those cases that the administration lost, the House was in effect saying that the Supreme Court’s interpretation was wrong.

In effect, the House becomes part of the judiciary, or worse, the House thinks itself better than the courts, and one basic principle of democracy laid down in the Constitution is (here is another trendy term) “separation of power.”

Certain lawyers even filed a petition before the Supreme Court to stop the impeachment of Corona, giving the Supreme Court the chance to interpret the law in favor of the… well, Supreme Court.

This is the thing: Nobody but nobody said all those cases—the ones cited in the articles of impeachment—involved the former President. I am not kidding: all those lofty concepts that were wrapped in legal niceties, all the eloquence and the oratorical skills, never said a word about Gloriaetta and her connection with Corona.

No wonder, the guys down here in my barangay are having fun in hearing those murky lectures on the law and on democracy. To simple minds, this whole thing is just about one thing: the sin of somebody in public office.

*  *  *

For the issue here is not the authority of the Supreme Court to rule on cases, and it is not even the decision of the Supreme Court. For these we do not need a trial at all. The Supreme Court wins hands down. We all know that, in its decisions, the Supreme Court is right even when it is wrong.

The issue is the circumstance in those decisions. This is what the trial of Corona is all about. Is he doing his job as Supreme Court Chief Justice? We all know that Corona served as the chief of staff of Mrs. Arroyo when she was still the vice president of the republic. In the cute administration of Gloriaetta, Corona became chief of staff, chief legal counsel and acting executive secretary.

We also know that, in all the 19 cases involving Mrs. Arroyo before the Supreme Court, Corona took her side.

Here is the more disturbing fact about the relationship of Corona with Mrs. Arroyo: She appointed him Chief Justice at a time of “ban” for such appointments, as the Constitution clearly says in plain language that is English.

Still, the Supreme Court had to make a ruling on that issue, whether or not Mrs. Arroyo could name Corona Chief Justice, and nine justices ruled in favor of Mrs. Arroyo, an interpretation of the Constitutions that was favorable to Corona. That kind of circumstance.

Sure, Corona just said “thank you” to those nine justices, and that was it, everything was soon forgotten. It is just that the Chief Justice has tremendous power over the purse of the judiciary. Part of the complaints against Corona precisely involved money—the JDF [judicial development fund] and the SAJ [special allowance for the judiciary].

And the Chief Justice has complete authority over those funds. Precisely where all the money went would be under scrutiny during the trial. This has hardly anything to do with “independence of the judiciary” and such. That is why the guys down here are watching. Those are funds of the public. The money is partly theirs.