Members of the Senate sit as judges in the impeachment case involving the Vice President. It is not a good look if any of those sitting as judges remain silent about the possibility that they are named to replace Vice President Sara Duterte in the event of conviction.
There is clearly a conflict of interest situation when the judge is potentially a beneficiary of his decision. Any judgment by a chamber composed of potential beneficiaries of the outcome cannot be credible.
The impeachment trial is curious to begin with. This is the first time a vice president – normally a powerless post – is being tried. And by a chamber of elected politicians, some of whom with unremarkable records for probity. She was impeached by an even rowdier chamber: the Lower House, which is now on trial in the court of public opinion for mangling the national budget.
Public interest in the trial is tepid at best. Our citizens have not bothered to closely observe trial proceedings. Only a minority, according to the surveys, believe the judgment will be fair. A plurality thinks the defense has done a better job – even as their formal presentation has yet to begin.
I think this is a useless exercise perpetrated by those who had the power but not the credibility to properly lead. Whatever the final outcome will be, everybody loses. The nation is distracted while the economy sinks. This whole circus will likely backfire, producing deep polarization in a country that needs to unite to solve a rapidly worsening crisis.
To address the taint of a possibly conflicted chamber, Sen. Francis Escudero declared he was unavailable to replace Sara Duterte in the event she is convicted. Sen. Alan Cayetano seconded the trial presiding officer, challenging all the senator-judges to declare they would refuse appointment to Sara’s post. This should discourage perception that the Senate arrived at a judgment from a conflicted position.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson and Claire Castro, silent about Escudero’s disavowal of interest, joined in chorus to denounce Cayetano’s seconding of the motion. A collective disavowal of interest in succession, the duo argued, restricts the President’s power to name the successor.
Which was not the issue. The President can name his own son if he wants to. The issue is the taint of conflict of interest that hangs like a dark cloud over the trial. This has to be addressed somehow.
We have seen enough hypocrisy in this contrived impeachment. Most understand this is nothing more than a cynical ploy to prevent a popular Vice President from becoming elected successor.
It is a ploy contrived by those guilty of worse crimes against our people.
Chief Justice
A fateful decision is coming up. The Judicial and Bar Council has submitted to the President its shortlist for Chief Justice. The incumbent retires just over a week from today.
The Supreme Court has become a more vital institution than usual. Both the presidency and Congress have lost legitimacy in our people’s eyes the past few years. Public opinion polls show net negative ratings for these two branches of government. This is understandable, considering the volume of scandal, mediocrity and brazenness that infected them.
The Supreme Court, on the other hand, repeatedly championed rights and due process the past few years when it seemed governance has run awry. The Court declared the first impeachment of Sara Duterte unconstitutional. The Court reversed the arbitrary decision to take money away from PhilHealth to use for purposes other than public health. Most recently, the Court declared unconstitutional the congressional practice of using ‘unprogrammed allocations’ to inflate the budget and move funds to pork barrel projects.
There are many layers of consideration in choosing the Chief Justice. Judicial philosophy is a consideration. Seniority is another. Legal scholarship needs to be assessed. Professional reputation is indispensable.
We had trouble in the past when seniority was brashly ignored. There was even bigger trouble when appointment to the highest judicial post was seen as animated by narrow political considerations.
Many see the Supreme Court as the last fully functioning branch of our tripartite government. The other two appear to have been overrun by corruption and incompetence such that we are intently waiting for 2028 for change to happen.
The Supreme Court these days is more than merely the court of last resort. It is seen as the reliable guardian of a genuinely constitutional political order. Without its guiding wisdom, we could be wandering in some dark space between tyranny and kleptocracy.
Needless to say, the choice of the next Chief Justice must be as solid as possible. The next leader of the judiciary must steer a fraught path, retaining its institutional credibility instead of being sunk by the waves of politicking. The choice the the next Chief Justice could be the last opportunity for Marcos Jr. to pay our democracy a lasting tribute.
The rumor is that the frontrunner for the highest judicial post is Rodil Zalameda. He is seventh in seniority and is said to be in contention because he penned two decisions favorable to the President’s family: the 2023 ruling that threw out the P41-billion ill-gotten wealth case against the Marcoses and Lucio Tan and this year’s decision that reversed Imelda Marcos’ 2018 graft conviction.
He may have other sterling credentials. But these two cases will invite public interpretation that the choice was political.