Anyone familiar with the peculiar manner in which Philippine politics sometimes operates will recognize the circus-like atmosphere that can prevail under ordinary circumstances. When high profile dynamics are thrown into the mix, the result can be surreal. Such is the case regarding the corruption charges pending against former President Arroyo, accused of diverting state funds and election rigging during the presidential campaign in 2004, tampering with congressional polls in 2007, and engaging in Marcos-esque corruption during her 9-year tenure as president. Many in the Philippines believe she and her husband were actually worse than the Marcoses in that regard.
Arroyo has come to emulate the theatrics of Imelda Marcos by repeatedly trying to leave the country for medical treatment (presumably, never to return), seen confined to a wheelchair and in a neck brace for a previously undisclosed and supposedly serious back ailment, predictably with a throng of devotees and flashing cameras in tow. She claimed she could only get adequate medical treatment for the mysterious condition outside the country, even though many doctors in the country are western trained, and there is at least one private hospital in Manila that rivals the best anywhere in Asia. President Aquino was right to prevent her from leaving and not to give in to pressure to simply let bygones be bygones and pardon her, as she did with her predecessor, former president Estrada. That would have been the worst thing he could do, and he knew it.
So much for the circus part of the story -- now for the sanity. What is happening in the Philippines this week reminds us that sometimes, the government can actually get things right. On Monday, the Philippine House of Representatives voted to impeach Chief Justice Corona for allegedly violating the constitution and betraying the public trust in connection with the trial of former president Arroyo, who originally appointed Corona to the Supreme Court. Corona is the first Chief Justice and Justice of the Supreme Court to actually be impeached by the House. Under the Philippine Constitution, the House has the exclusive power to initiate cases of impeachment against the President, Vice President, members of the Supreme Court and constitutional commissions, and the Ombudsman. The impeachment proceedings required at least 95 signatures (one-third of all members of the House) to move forward. In the end, 188 of the 284 members of the House voted to impeach Corona, and the case was formally remitted to the Senate on Tuesday.
The impeachment of Corona is an appropriate example for drawing lessons from the experience of the United States, whose constitutional practices and provisions were written into the Philippine Constitution almost verbatim, and whose case law is usually directly cited in the Philippine judicial system. Justice Samuel Chase, appointed by George Washington, remains the only United States Supreme Court justice who has ever been subjected to the impeachment process, and his acquittal played an important role in preventing the overt politicization of the process. The core of the allegations against Chase was that his extreme Federalist bias had led to his treating defendants and their counsel in a deliberately unfair manner. In response to the articles of his impeachment, Chase argued that all of his actions had been motivated by adherence to precedent, judicial duty to restrain advocates from improper statements of law, and considerations of judicial efficiency. The Senate acquitted Chase of all charges, supporting the view that grounds for impeachment should be either based on criminality or abuse of office, rather than partisanship.
Ironically, Corona has himself argued that the framers of the US and Philippine Constitutions "intended impeachment to be an instrument of last resort, a draconian measure to be exercised only when there are no other alternatives available." He wrote that a great deal of prudence must be exercised in the impeachment process, which should not be used as a bargaining chip or a weapon for political leverage. Since the time of Jefferson, all presidents and most members of Congress in the United States have generally eschewed the impeachment process as immensely partisan and cumbersome, given that time and resources allocated for legislative work is instead diverted to the impeachment process. The Philippine economy suffered a serious blow during the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada in 2001.
The eight charges brought against Corona, which will serve as the articles of impeachment when his trial proceeds, include culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust -- citing specifically his "undue closeness" to Arroyo and suspected affinity for siding with her administration in politically-significant cases. Supreme Court Spokesman Marquez confirmed that Chief Justice Corona will not resign, and will squarely face the impeachment case against him, calling it "an assault on all the rights, powers and privileges of the entire judiciary." Supporters of Corona further point to the impeachment as a form of political maneuvering buttressed by a perceived popular pulse against Corona and the Supreme Court itself, which they believe is being forced to surrender its constitutionally mandated functions and powers to "the whim and caprice of political machinations."
In recent weeks, President Aquino openly criticized the Supreme Court in several interviews and speeches for its partiality, which culminated in its issuance of a temporary restraining order against watch list orders issued by the Department of Justice that prohibited Arroyo from leaving the country. While this seems to be a dangerous strategy for Aquino's camp, since it pits the executive (and now, legislative) branch against the judiciary, the viewpoints of the opposing sides in the impeachment issue are not unfounded. It is only reasonable to expect Supreme Court Justices to rise above politics, personal gratitude and affinities -- in any country -- and to make decisions based on constitutionality, fairness and impartiality by interpreting the country's laws and settling controversies through an appreciation of a given set of facts and applicable laws, while taking into consideration their respective beliefs and legal philosophies. When a Justice commits wrongdoing and falls short of these expectations, it is incumbent upon the powers that be to take action. Impeachment is a legal process that is part and parcel of a healthy democracy. Although viewed by the opposition as an attempt to destabilize the Court, the impeachment process is nevertheless a legal and constitutional remedy that aims to exact accountability for possible abuses committed by those in the High Tribunal.
The House prosecution must be exact in addressing potential weaknesses in the case. Corona's supporters in Congress and the courts maintain that he is being singled out for collegial decisions of the Supreme Court, and that some issues have already been addressed by Congress and the Office of the President, such as Corona's "midnight appointment" and the alleged gerrymandering of local government units. When President Aquino himself admits that the Chief Justice is the last stumbling block to his reform agenda, it will not be surprising to see the Senate -- tasked to try and decide on the impeachment -- incorporate partisan politics during the trial. As judges during the impeachment trial, the Philippine senators should of course ignore political affiliations and thoroughly scrutinize and vote on the merits of the case that will be presented, so that the proceedings will not be seen as another political scandal that unfairly diverts attention away from more pressing legislative issues.
A difficult road lay ahead for the country's judiciary. At a time when the political and public pulse often dictates collective decision-making in the Philippines, the country looks to the judicial branch and the Supreme Court to be an impartial entity, capable of deciding on the most difficult and politically divisive legal matters with exactitude and fairness. Given Corona's track record of revealing his partiality to former President Arroyo, trust is a big issue. The citizens of the Philippines expect their Justices to be persons of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence, even if that has not proven to be the case numerous times in the past. The rarity of impeachment and reluctance of lawmakers to utilize this constitutional tool is a measure of the gravity of the situation. The process is not invoked by mere suspicions of wrongdoing and other less than serious grounds, or even the espousal of controversial or unpopular points of view, but by criminality and substantial abuse of power. Thus, conviction must happen only if it is clear cut. It is the task of the House prosecution panel to provide substance to its allegations against Corona himself, without compromising the authority and independence of the Supreme Court as an institution.
The task before the legislators in the Philippines is of the highest possible importance. They have an opportunity to demonstrate that they are capable of rising above the smelly 'business as usual' among the privileged class, and actually do what they were put in office to do. The ability to establish (not restore) public confidence in the legislative process ought to be seen as the overriding objective of the legislators. Our fear is that, in the end, partisan politics, entrenched interests, and old fashioned greed will win out over common sense and simply doing the right thing. If, in the face of substantial proof of wrongdoing, Philippine lawmakers fail to impeach Corona, it will not only be yet another sad day for Filipinos, but the Philippines will be sending yet another in a series of predictable messages to the rest of the world that it is incapable of functioning as a legitimate democracy - something many other democracies have proven themselves able to do for a long time.
* Edsel Tupaz is founder and managing partner of Tupaz and Associates, and a professor of international and comparative law, based in Manila. Daniel Wagner is CEO of Country Risk Solutions, a cross-border risk management consultancy based in Connecticut (USA), and author of the forthcoming book Managing Country Risk (March 2012).
Follow Edsel Tupaz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/edseltupaz
Follow Daniel Wagner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/countryriskmgmt
Adapted from Edsel Tupaz, Impeachment and Institutional Integrity in the Philippines, JURIST - Sidebar, Dec. 14, 2011
I will wait for it, Sir. And I will share it with my friends, but in its present form, I cannot. I also was alarmed by this:
"If, in the face of substantial proof of wrongdoing, Philippine lawmakers fail to impeach Corona, it will not only be yet another sad day for Filipinos, but the Philippines will be sending yet another in a series of predictable messages to the rest of the world that it is incapable of functioning as a legitimate democracy - something many other democracies have proven themselves able to do for a long time."
It created a patently flawed formula of equating non-impeachment of the CJ to failed democracy. Sir, it not only advances an air of uncertainty towards the capacity of our government to correct itself when our democracy is challenged, it also attacks the very thing the article claims to protect. We are a democracy at its infancy, some can argue we are a pre-mature democracy, with a penchant for oligarchic leaders. Lastly, there was no resolution offered but rather readers are invited to jump into this bandwagon of fear-mongering and cynicism. There is a competent majority in our midst that is silent, and prefer to heed the call for sobriety, civility and the rule of law. And we are here to stay.
Terrorists feeds on gory public releases. They know that. They were invited to snap pictures of the terrorists beheading handiworks. And they get "angered" if they publicize that they kidnapped Ces Drilon? Who are they trying to fool ?
The outing of rape victim "Nicole". Affidavits, pictures, addresses and all were published front page in the Philippine newspapers.
The Philippine Media also do not criticize Philippine Government investigators making public of their findings thereby "jeopardizing investigation and prosecution".
That is why President Arroyo is already guilty in the minds of the Filipinos. President Aquino is blessed that Filipinos do not have sieving filtering faculties which are gossips, suggestive innuendos and facts. They just believe in anything in the papers.
Suggestions to foreigners, Filipinos have the propensity of turo-turo justice (point-point-you-are-it justice). By mere Affidavits foreigners are doomed, no evidence necessary.
It is of great import that it was the biased, regrettably unprofessional Philippine Media that elected Pres. Aquino thru the clueless electorates. It is also thru the biased Philippine Media, that became the willing messengers and volunteers of gossips of Philippine Government whose investigations and perceived corruptions are leaking like a sieve which if it were to happen in the United States they would be investigated internally and kicked out of the government.
There are hundreds and hundreds of allegations against former President Arroyo and only one was filed, political sabotage. By the time of filing Arroyo's reputation is shredded in tatters and the Filipinos minds are already mind conditioned and brainwashed.
To understand this tactic is to understand how the Filipino brains function. Filipinos believe in anything published in the papers because they have very little faculties. My proof is Philippines is so left-behind by neighboring countries which has just been liberated or out from the ashes of wars. And the greatest of the Filipinos is they blame the elected officials that they elected, not them electing. This idea of them makes the perception that they are intelligent people. That is scary. And that is what is happening right now. ....
I can't find the facts anywhere in your article. You can't just throw in this "assumption" without citing this track record.
It's not gospel truth, you know. Unless you give it a fair research and assessment, then heck, we all fall to the trap of believing anything. "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." FACT MATTERS. Why don't you write on the issue whether he was in fact partial to GMA, and prove it.
Our lexicon is broad enough to accommodate our reservations on otherwise verifiable facts. In the meantime, there's a huge divide between responsible journalism and sound bites, which is as big a divide as there is between fact and opinion. On that note, I would like to get your opinion on Pakistan's "Lawyers' Movement" and the IBP's reference to it as a model, for their protest (and defiance) against the impeachment (which is nothing but the President's orders), hence, support for CJ Corona.
DW
People just don't get that there are page/word limits to this thing? Ignorance. If they don't agree, look it up. I'm pretty sure the author doesn't have to prove that the world revolves around the sun which thereby affects Philippine politics, right? There is substantial proof to believe Corona's partiality. All one has to do is look up his track record - why put the track record up in limited space?
• Corona favored Arroyo by voting as constitutional her Proclamation No. 427 which declared a state of rebellion [2003 Oakwood mutiny]. Only 1 out of the 15 justices dissented. Hilario Davide, then the chief justice, and his successor Panganiban voted for the proclamation.
• Corona voted to dismiss a petition by communist-affiliated groups to declare unconstitutional “Arroyo’s VAT reform act.” But that was also a unanimous Court decision--a law that Drilon himself pushed for when he was Senate president.
[there is in fact limited space, for debunking your assumption, see, "Aquino savages the rule of law" for more)
"Mr. Aquino and Drilon’s allegation of an “Arroyo Court” defies common sense: An unscrupulous justice would curry favor with a powerful, incumbent president who can give him or her a boon—like a job immediately after retirement—instead of with an ex-president who is powerless and being pursued by a mindless, savage mob."
---------
Now, if you want me to excuse you for your ignorance, you have it. But ignorance, like they say, excuses no one. So, I ask for your open mind to have a space, however limited, to logic, reason and TRUTH.
DW
DW
I disagree with this statement. I don't think 188 congressmen approving impeachment complaints without having read the actual document is "getting things right". This is just another part of the circus.. The typical reactionary politics of a country whose elected officials know neither political theory nor the principles on which their system of government depends and operates on.
You really should read "Aquino Savages the Rule of Law" by Mr Tiglao of the Philippine Daily Inquirer. http://opinion.inquirer.net/18695/aquino-savages-the-rule-of-law.
His points are well argued and nuanced. They provide a good counterpoint to this article's seeming tilt in favor of Aquino.