- 7 minutes ago
"The truth-telling makes the impeachment process worth it.”
UP Law School Associate Dean Paolo Tamase explains to Howie Severino the various ways an impeachment trial is different from a regular courtroom trial.
He warns against "over-judicialization," or getting bogged down in legal procedures, when an impeachment trial is more of a political process meant to ferret out the truth in service of accountability.
Their conversation revisits previous impeachment cases, including the infamous "second envelope" vote that triggered EDSA 2 during the Joseph Estrada trial and the historic conviction of Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Now that a Vice President is on trial, Atty. Tamase raises intriguing questions, such as in the event of her resignation in the middle of the proceedings, should the trial continue?
UP Law School Associate Dean Paolo Tamase explains to Howie Severino the various ways an impeachment trial is different from a regular courtroom trial.
He warns against "over-judicialization," or getting bogged down in legal procedures, when an impeachment trial is more of a political process meant to ferret out the truth in service of accountability.
Their conversation revisits previous impeachment cases, including the infamous "second envelope" vote that triggered EDSA 2 during the Joseph Estrada trial and the historic conviction of Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Now that a Vice President is on trial, Atty. Tamase raises intriguing questions, such as in the event of her resignation in the middle of the proceedings, should the trial continue?
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00:00Thank you very much.
00:00:40Thank you very much.
00:01:00Okay, let's start with the basics.
00:01:02Kakaiba ito sa mga karaniwang korteng alam natin.
00:01:07Bihira itong mag-convene, obviously.
00:01:10Paano siya naiiba?
00:01:12So, yung difference, yung key difference ng impeachment court with the Senate and yung regular courts natin in the judicial
00:01:21branch is really yung frame or yung mindset of how they decide cases.
00:01:27Judicial courts mound sila, parang kasama sa kanila yung requirement that they rule neutrally, codes of impartiality are applied very
00:01:38strictly, and they rule according to law and fact.
00:01:41Yung impeachment court natin, according to our impeachment practice, hindi naman sa hindi sila fair na nagro-rule.
00:01:47But yung standards na very strict for judges, they don't apply to our senators kasi hindi naman sila necessarily trained
00:01:55as lawyers or trained in the law.
00:01:57And they're expected to rule on the basis of policy and political judgment.
00:02:02So, they are required.
00:02:03They're required naman sila to maintain itong political neutrality, based especially on our tradition and how impeachment has evolved sa
00:02:11Pilipinas.
00:02:11But on the whole, we don't expect them to be anything less than senators, even if they wear fancy robes
00:02:18na normally for judges.
00:02:20The other important thing is procedure.
00:02:23So, court procedures are very strictly applied, very detailed yung proseso.
00:02:28Sa court, civil procedure is a subject na major subject for any law student.
00:02:33Yung senators natin are not trained in that type of procedure.
00:02:36And therefore, pag nakita niyo yung trial, may mixture of both legislative as well as judicial aspects yung proseso niya.
00:02:45But on the whole, yung process is not very strict.
00:02:47Kasi yung main consideration is not really yung technical questions for judges like admissibility, preponderance, or weight of evidence.
00:02:58Ang importante is yung truth.
00:02:59And therefore, impeachment at its core is really a truth-telling proceeding involving a very important official in government.
00:03:08Okay. Well, thank you for that explanation.
00:03:10There's a number of things there that I'd like to unpack with you.
00:03:15Pero I want to start with something that's obvious to many.
00:03:19Sabi mo nga, naging judges na tong mga senador natin.
00:03:23Kasi sa karaniwang korte, isa lang ang judge.
00:03:26That's also something, I guess, that makes this particular court unique.
00:03:31Ano ba mong iniisip ko to?
00:03:34Parang it reminds me of kind of the American jury system that we see on TV and in the movies.
00:03:40Wala tayong jury system dito sa Pilipinas.
00:03:43Pero parang ganun din ba to?
00:03:45Kasi nga, they're hearing evidence and they also will vote and decide on the fate of whoever is on trial.
00:03:56Diba?
00:03:57Kung baga, the jury also judges.
00:04:00Diba?
00:04:01No, it's very similar to a jury.
00:04:03In fact, if you go back to the Estrada impeachment in the 2000s,
00:04:07and you look at media reports around that time,
00:04:10impeachment was very new as a trial sa Pilipinas.
00:04:13So, everyone was trying to understand yung terminology.
00:04:17Many newspapers, media outlets called them jurors.
00:04:20And then later on, na-clarify na lang yung terminology that the Senate uses for itself, na judges.
00:04:26Kasi nga, wala naman tayong jury system.
00:04:28But to your point, Hawi, ang jury system kasi sa United States and common law countries like the UK,
00:04:34yung konsepto nun ay,
00:04:35iko-convict ka for a crime or judge yung liability mo para sa isang krimen
00:04:41on the basis of the judgment of your peers.
00:04:44And yung peers mo are not necessarily lawyers as well.
00:04:48So, juries sa Estados Unidos, hindi mga abogado usually.
00:04:52In fact, normally, hindi allowed yung lawyers,
00:04:56especially if may involvement or knowledge of the eccentricities ng case na yun.
00:05:01So, usually, excused sila from jury duty.
00:05:04So, in a way, address din yung tanong sa impeachment to people who also are not trained in law.
00:05:11So, ang tanong lang dun is, yung moral conscience ba ninyo based dito sa instruction ng judge in the US
00:05:16and based on the facts na nakita ninyo, guilty ba itong tao na ito?
00:05:21So, very different dynamic from a judge.
00:05:23Normally na, very technical yung assessment niya of the law and the facts behind each issue or each ground.
00:05:30Kasi nga, ilang beses mo rin sinabi in other interviews and you've actually written about this
00:05:37na may danger dito sa impeachment court na maging overjudicialized as opposed to being a political process.
00:05:53That's another big difference between what's going on in the Senate as an impeachment court
00:05:58and itong regular court, which sabi mo nga, I mean, that's a legal proceeding presided over by a single judge
00:06:07who has to be a lawyer, di ba?
00:06:09In this case, itong mga senador, I think the majority of them are not lawyers, di ba?
00:06:14Yes, we have the lowest number of lawyers in the Senate, I think, since 1987.
00:06:21And maganda yung point mo about the overjudicialization.
00:06:24And I think usually kasi yung kinatunan ng tao, parang hindi ba better na sobrang strict na lang nung process,
00:06:31parang korte siya na compliant talaga sa strict rules of procedure and then may standards of evidence.
00:06:39I think yung answer of most constitutional scholars there is,
00:06:42ayaw kasi natin na ma-conflate yung different types of accountability in government
00:06:47and different types of liability.
00:06:49So, a public officer, a high public official, pwede siyang liable for criminal matters,
00:06:55in which case kulong yung consequence.
00:06:58Pwede siyang liable for civil matters, in which case pera yung binabayaran
00:07:02to parang pay for the damages na nasuffer nung isang party.
00:07:08But yung impeachment is really a process of political accountability.
00:07:12Yung tinatanong dun is hindi kung dapat makulong yung isang tao,
00:07:17hindi kung dapat ba siya magbayad ng damages,
00:07:19but kung dapat pa siya mag-continue in office,
00:07:22continue serving the public and exercising state power.
00:07:26So, very different yung question na involved.
00:07:29And therefore, because ganun yung tanong,
00:07:31hindi din necessarily according to law lagi yung standards
00:07:34na tinitingnan sa impeachment.
00:07:36Kaya ayaw natin siya na ma-overjudicialize.
00:07:39Kasi baka ang mangyari, hindi na tayo nakafocus doon sa truth.
00:07:44The basic truth of dapat pagkatiwalaan to ba yung official,
00:07:48but nakafocus na tayo doon,
00:07:50ah, tama ba yung objection niya?
00:07:51Or parang, ako, admissible ba yung evidence niya?
00:07:54Yung sinasabi mong overjudicialization or overjudicialize,
00:07:58ang ibig sabihin, because that sounds like a highfalutin word, no?
00:08:02So, ang ibig sabihin yan ay parang legalistic o masyadong technical
00:08:06ang nagiging proseso na maaring maudlot yung proseso
00:08:12dahil nga sa isang, you know, legal technicality.
00:08:16As opposed to the overriding concern for, yun nga, accountability, no?
00:08:23Yes, and the truth.
00:08:25So, a good example with that is, again, yung Estrada impeachment.
00:08:28Yung most famous episode, or one of the most famous episodes
00:08:32of the Estrada impeachment involved yung second envelope.
00:08:35Diba, bubuksan ba ng Senate yung envelope na yun
00:08:38na supposedly containing certain bank records
00:08:40na critical to the case of the prosecution?
00:08:43Yung argument nung side na hindi yan dapat buksan
00:08:47involved legalistic arguments na bank secrecy.
00:08:50Yes, the defense of Estrada, of course.
00:08:52Like, yes, bank secrecy, relevance, all of these other technical terms
00:08:56na, you know, people spend four years trying to study in law school
00:08:59and then some sa practice.
00:09:01But, ultimately, yung mamamayan nun, and speaking as a 10-year-old boy
00:09:06at the time of the impeachment trial of ERAP, parang iniisip lang naman nun,
00:09:10totoo ba o hindi, no?
00:09:12Ano ba yung ebidensya na gusto, kaya naman namin i-assess yan nun our own?
00:09:16So, even if normally, potentially maharang yung in court,
00:09:20yung the fact that the impeachment is a political truth-telling process
00:09:24suggests na yung rules na stick to the court, hindi siya dapat nag-a-apply
00:09:27and you don't want to overjudicialize yung proseso ng impeachment.
00:09:32Okay. So, now that you opened up the subject of the Estrada trial in the Senate,
00:09:37many of our viewers and listeners now either were not born yet
00:09:42or maybe are as young as you or even much younger than you.
00:09:44So, we'll just do a little bit of impeachment history here.
00:09:48So, si President, he was President then, President Joseph Estrada
00:09:56was impeached by the House and he was undergoing trial in the Senate.
00:10:01Supposedly, may malakas na ebidensya dito sa envelope na pinresent ng prosecutor
00:10:11and nag-object na, sabi mo nga, nag-object yung defense lawyers ni Estrada
00:10:16na buksan. And then, of course, the Senate voted, I think it was 11 to 10,
00:10:23or it was a very close vote, at pumanig yung majority sa defense.
00:10:33So, hindi na buksan yung envelope.
00:10:34So, what you're saying is that's an example of a process that was overjudicialized
00:10:43or na-technical yung trial, kaya hindi lumabas yung ebidensya.
00:10:51So, sinasabi mo, yung objection ng defense lawyers ni President Estrada,
00:10:58hindi valid or hindi dapat pinakinggan or binigyang visa ng mga senador?
00:11:05Kasi maaaring technically correct, legally correct yung kanilang panig, di ba?
00:11:10Well, hindi naman necessarily na-correct.
00:11:12I think legally, you could have argued kung sa korte pa yun na dapat nabuksan yung
00:11:17second envelope in 2001.
00:11:21But, it goes to show na yung those types of arguments, baka naintindihan ng abogado yun,
00:11:27baka naintindihan ng judge yun, pero pagdating sa mamamayan na hindi naman nag-aral
00:11:33ng law, ang hinahanap lang yung katotohanan in all of the process, parang ang unang
00:11:37iisip yun, bakit mo pinatago yung ebidensya? Even when kung lawyers na nang involved
00:11:42dyan in a normal court process, maintindihan mo why certain evidence can't be opened,
00:11:46even if they may indicate the truth. So, yun yung, I think, example talaga yun na
00:11:51if you over-judicialize the process, you apply very strict rules of procedure,
00:11:57very strict rules of evidence, then you don't only suppress potentially yung truth.
00:12:03The fact is, many of the offenses in an impeachment case, normally, hindi nga yan
00:12:07pasok sa specific na criminal violations. So, ibig sabihin yung evidence for it,
00:12:13hindi din ganong ka-technical in the first place. But you also risk losing yung trust
00:12:18ng publiko in the process. And it's a good reminder always for the Senate na pagdating dito
00:12:24sa objections na to or sa technical issues, it's not only important to keep in mind yung
00:12:30core ng impeachment as a truth-telling procedure, but also be scared about ano pag
00:12:34nabwisip yung tao doon sa pagtatago ng ebidensya.
00:12:39Okay. Just to refresh again, kasi this is 26 years ago, no? The objection of the President
00:12:47Estrada's defense team was rooted in their argument that these bank documents that were
00:12:55supposedly evidence of, I guess, graft and corruption or hidden wealth were not part of the
00:13:04original complaint na nanggaling sa house, di ba?
00:13:09Yes.
00:13:10So, that's their legal argument. So, hindi kasama doon sa complaint. So, bakit nyo kami
00:13:16binuluga? Parang sinurprise mo yung korte with this new evidence.
00:13:21But I guess, from my perspective, I cannot blame the defense lawyers for trying to use
00:13:31everything within their means to defend their client. So, it's the senators, the judges in
00:13:38the impeachment court who decided that they were going to give value to this argument,
00:13:46may napapanigan nila, no? So, sila yung nag-overjudicialize, di ba?
00:13:50It's up to the senators to do that.
00:13:52Yes. It's the ethical duty of the defense lawyers then na i-combat, di ba? I mean, do yung
00:13:58trabaho naman ng lawyer to do the best for their client. And I think if you have a plausible
00:14:03argument, similar to courts, no? Sa courts kasi pag napag-desisyonan na kung ano yung
00:14:07evidence na ipipresenta in a pre-trial, which is what the current Senate did, no?
00:14:12Na ito lang yung ebidensyo na ipapakita, ito lang yung issues na kasama, pwede mo talagang
00:14:17i-object yung pag-presenta ng evidence on the ground of relevance among others, a key
00:14:23requirement for evidence to be admitted in court. Pero, ultimately, yung accountability
00:14:30doesn't really fall upon the defense counsel. It falls upon the senator judges. Kasi just
00:14:35because one side objected doesn't mean they have to listen to it.
00:14:39Ang nangyari dito, of course, we have to continue the Estrada story because it gets even more
00:14:43exciting, right? So, ang nangyari dyan, the second envelope was not opened. And then, yun
00:14:51nga, nagkaroon ng public reaction, to say the least, no? Kasi people took to the streets.
00:14:58Yes.
00:15:00Kung baga, oo, people, I guess, I guess, the general opinion was may tinatago itong Senado,
00:15:11di ba, na ayobuksan, na despite the legal arguments of the defense team,
00:15:18naniniwala pa rin yung publiko, no? So, may malaking, ano rito, may malaking papel ang
00:15:24public opinion dito sa impeachment court. Absolutely. Both trials in ERAC and Chief Justice
00:15:32Corona, the only two trials we've had, sobrang laki ng role ng publiko. And I think how we
00:15:37refresh you for your listeners who might not have been aware at that time. Nung nag-vote yung
00:15:45Senate in 2001, January 2001, not to open the second envelope, immediately, nag-walk out yung
00:15:55prosecution team, nag-resign si Senate President Aquilino Pimentel at the time, who was co-presiding
00:16:02the impeachment trial. And then, in the age before social media, texts went around saying,
00:16:08sa EDSA na lang tayo magkikita, no? Or something to that effect. So, yung bilis nung galit
00:16:16nung, I think, nung mamamayan was also aided by very important moral courage, or the show
00:16:24of moral courage of certain important officials. So, definitely yung the senators, the 10 senators
00:16:30who decided to vote for opening the second envelope. And Senator Pimentel, who was, I think,
00:16:37allied with the president at the time, as a Senate President Majority Leader. Sorry,
00:16:42a Senate President supported by the majority. He was seen as allied with the president at
00:16:47least at the beginning. And then, nung important na yung moment na may tinatago na ebidensya
00:16:52or may ebidensya na ayaw ipakita, he decided to step down. So, yung drama na yun created
00:16:57or set the stage for people understanding na, teka, may if-e or parang may wrong na may
00:17:04mali na nangyayari. And dun lang sila basan yung tao. So, tas tuloy-tuloy na sa EDSA.
00:17:10Hindi na nakapag-praya the next day.
00:17:12Yun ang sinaguri ang EDSA-dos, di ba?
00:17:15Yes.
00:17:16Which led to the resignation of President Estrada. He fled Malacanang on a boat.
00:17:24We covered that. And that was triggered by not just the uprising of people and the Senate
00:17:34vote, but also the withdrawal of the military from his, in support of his, the withdrawal
00:17:42of military support from his administration. So, ito parang nagkaroon ng domino effect,
00:17:47no? Starting with that. But yun nga eh. I mean, all of this is really to illustrate your
00:17:52point na parang naging na-fixate doon sa legal procedures. Kaya hindi binuksan yung envelope.
00:18:03But of course, the refusal to open that second envelope was not just a legal decision. It
00:18:09was also political, di ba?
00:18:11Yes. And I think magandang point yun kasi, you know, in normal courts, pag nagkamali ang
00:18:17judge, or nagkamali yung trial court, ang nangyayari may option ka to appeal, right?
00:18:22You go to the Court of Appeals from the RTC, then you go to the Supreme Court, which means
00:18:27may opportunity to correct yung judgment na yun using legal standards as well by people
00:18:32who are also trained in law. Pero pag nagkamali ng political judgment, yung impeachment
00:18:38court, taong mayan yun naniningil nung paano mo siya i-correct. Kasi hindi na pwede
00:18:42balik pa rin ng any court yung pagkakamali. So in the EDSA 2, in the case of EDSA 2, it
00:18:47was a revolt, or parang a popular uprising na nangyayari. And in the normal cases, in
00:18:55other countries, na hindi naman necessarily nag-result in mass uprisings, yung effect
00:19:02nyo would normally be elections. So you also saw that in EDSA 2, yung midterm elections
00:19:07that happened after, three, four months after EDSA 2, natalo yung karamihan doon sa
00:19:1411 who voted not to open the second envelope. So political din yung judgment or yung
00:19:20correction in cases of impeachment.
00:19:22Okay, balikan ko lang itong public opinion. Kasi, you know, kami mga reporter,
00:19:28journalists, na nagko-cover ng courts, ng mga kaso under litigation.
00:19:35Minsan, sasabihang kami na subjudice, di ba? That's a principle where, which some
00:19:43people use to refuse to comment on a case because there is a principle in the legal
00:19:54profession where you're not supposed to say things publicly that could influence the
00:20:01outcome of a case, di ba? Which is actually the opposite of what you're saying.
00:20:05In this particular court, itong impeachment court ng Senado, where you're saying
00:20:10public opinion is very important, pero in other kinds of courts, criminal courts,
00:20:16the usual courts that people know, parang ini-insulate yung court proceedings from
00:20:23public opinion.
00:20:25Yes. In fact, if you want to use the jury analogy sa US, we have 12 people in that
00:20:32jury. May jury sequestration pa na tinatawag. Parang tinatago talaga sila. Di nila nababasa
00:20:38yung news on the trial. Para ang tinitignan lang nila is the evidence on record, yung evidence
00:20:44na pinayagan ng court na makita. Di ba yung impeachment? Because again, hindi siya legal process.
00:20:50The court says it's legal, constitutional, and political, but at its core, political
00:20:55talaga siya na proseso. Kasi nakikita mo kagad yung reaction ng taong bayan. And I think
00:21:00relevant yun because, if I'm not mistaken, yung Senate rules ngayon mayroong, or may
00:21:06instruction for the lawyers regarding subjudice. Na parang you are not supposed to litigate
00:21:13your case before the public. And I'm not sure if that's a good thing to do. Kasi even in the
00:21:18corona impeachment, both panels had their own spokespersons who had to explain to the
00:21:24public kung ano yung nangyayari. And especially because, hindi ba naman maiwasan na kahit
00:21:28pa paano gagamit ng legal language, legal procedure, yung impeachment. Yung objective
00:21:34was actually to keep the public informed. Yun yung pinakamahalaga.
00:21:38So I guess, I guess the point that I'm driving at here is that, tinatawag siyang court,
00:21:45but may hangganan lang dapat ang sinasabi mo, itong mga legalistic argumentation, because
00:21:53it is really as much as, it's also a political process. In fact, it's probably even more so
00:22:02dahil nga hindi clearly defined yung mga rules dito, yung mga standards of evidence, for
00:22:07example. But I've, but some are saying, and I've observed in this particular case, itong
00:22:13Vice President Sara Duterte, yung kanyang defense team has been kind of taking that approach,
00:22:20a kind of legalistic approach, rather than trying to debunk the evidence. Parang, you know,
00:22:28they're raising issues about due process and that kind of thing. So maaring, so do you see
00:22:34the upcoming trial as maybe getting bogged down in something similar that has already
00:22:43happened in our history, which has had major consequences as we've seen?
00:22:49I think there is a risk, for sure. You're right, na hindi lang objections in the quote-unquote
00:22:57impeachment court. Not really a fan of that term na, kasi Senate lang naman ang nasa
00:23:01sa constitution natin, but we call it an impeachment court kasi we expect, by tradition, that our
00:23:07senators act fairly and neutrally as much as possible. But to the point, I think you can
00:23:13expect na legal talaga yung arguments na ilalabas nung other side. And from a strategic
00:23:18perspective, that may have a few effects. One is, one is now obfuscate yung issue or yung
00:23:26evidentiary questions. Ano ba talaga yung pinag-aawaya na issue dito? Once you start
00:23:32hearing Latin, parang people tune out. And hindi ko alam if that's a strategy that is being
00:23:38employed, but may risk talaga for people to stop listening when lawyers sound like lawyers.
00:23:43Kasi nakakapagod din pakinggan yun. The second thing that might be a result is that yung law
00:23:53is often respectfully misused away from values like truth, accountability, fairness, equality,
00:24:03yung values that are important to a democracy. Misused sila in order to get things done by the
00:24:10administration. And justified, ginagamit na yung administration to justify some of those acts
00:24:16like kasi they violate certain laws supposedly. So ginagamit yung law as a whitewashing
00:24:23device. And yun yung what we want to avoid. Well, I've heard the term weaponization of the
00:24:28law, di ba? Yes. Other scholars call it lawfare. But yun, weaponization talaga siya.
00:24:34So looking at the Philippine history of impeachment, ano ba yung factors that have had the greatest
00:24:43influence on the outcomes of impeachment proceedings? Considering it's also, sabi mo nga,
00:24:50it's also a political process. May political process, ano bang ibig sabihin yan? It doesn't
00:24:57just mean it's partisan, di ba? I mean, it's not, it's not just a numbers game. Sino ba yung mga
00:25:03kakampi ko diyan? Etc. It's, the judges here or the people who are going to decide the fate
00:25:09of the person on trial are political actors. Nahalal silang lahat. They're all elected. They're all,
00:25:16you know, answerable to the people, etc. Is that what you mean by this, that it's a political process?
00:25:23No, it's a, the ones presiding over the process are political actors. They're politicians.
00:25:29Yes. And I know that, you know, politics, politica has had a dirty connotation in our society,
00:25:35but politics simply means na hindi siya based on what is correct under the law. Based lang siya
00:25:41on what is right, or what is preferable to society. So yun yung politics that we refer to when we
00:25:48talk
00:25:48about impeachment. At its core, question of policy and on whether to continue whether somebody
00:25:53should continue in office. And that was at least the design nung Americans from where we
00:25:58took impeachment up until we took impeachment as early as 1935. But if you look at recent
00:26:04Philippine history, and we've only had experience of trials, na experience naman natin yan
00:26:09post-87, yung pinaka-important na key change in the way that impeachment trials are done in
00:26:17the Philippines versus the United States is the level of publicity. So in the United States, yung
00:26:24Senate impeachment trials are generally held in-camera only. It's televised by, by all of
00:26:33these media networks. But yung presentation ng evidence nila very selected, at least in recent
00:26:39impeachment trials, no? Parang namimilili ng evidentia yan. And the recent trials have ended...
00:26:44Sorry, is that by law? By rules? Or what? It's by the Senate's rules. Kasi sa kanila, parang
00:26:50ayaw nila pakabain masyado. Even the Clinton impeachment trial didn't last as long. So
00:26:55limited to the presentation of evidence, a large amount of evidence is actually presented
00:27:00behind closed doors. Tapos pinapresenta na lang siya to the Senate for their evaluation
00:27:05for a vote. Yung impeachment sa Pilipinas, diba? Right? Atin, the 20 days of the impeachment
00:27:12trial of ERAP, the 44 days of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Corona, yung public nakatutok
00:27:19talaga, they get to see the evidence that is being presented, yung witnesses who are being called,
00:27:24the questions na tinatanong sa kanila. So mataas, or actually malalim yung awareness of the
00:27:30public if they view the trial. So important yung publicity na ginanyari in our trials
00:27:38and the level of the public trial na ginagawa. That said, one of the key variables that we
00:27:44don't know yet, na very different from the last 20, 30 years, is really how social media
00:27:52affects the way that the public sees the trial. Dati kasi, even up to Corona, wala kang choice eh. If
00:27:59you wanted to view it, you'd have to watch TV and see everything whether you like it or not.
00:28:03But ngayon, the content, the news that the people get are mostly curated by algorithms or by political
00:28:12bias behind it. So sometimes I worry na the publicity aspect of yung impeachment might have as many
00:28:19detrimental effects as there are good ones in the sense that people might not be seeing yung full
00:28:26proceeding. They might be seeing snippets of the proceedings, spliced videos of the proceeding,
00:28:32and dun sila mamumunan judgment, which only reinforces existing biases for or against one side.
00:28:38Yeah. And of course, it will also influence the perception of the evidence, di ba?
00:28:46Yes.
00:28:47Kahit mag-presenta ng napakalakas na ebidensya sa trial, maraming, pwedeng sabihin ng marami
00:28:57na AI lang yan, manipulated lang yan, at yun ang kumalat na narrative na inimbento lang
00:29:02lahat. So among the factors, so of course this is a trial, so may evidence diyan, may legal
00:29:10arguments na pag-usapan natin yung minsan na over-inflate yung importance ng legal aspects
00:29:17nito. And then you just mentioned public opinion. And then there are the political alliances,
00:29:22di ba? Or political loyalties na as far as this group of senators are concerned, I think
00:29:30people know where they stand now. So, alin diyan si tingin mong, ano, pinaka-game changer?
00:29:42Importante pa ka yung evidence?
00:29:44Or in the face of, sabi mo, social media where, you know, people's perception of everything
00:29:51can be, you know, manipulated or influenced by, you know, highly curated presentations, etc.
00:30:01And then of course, yung political loyalties ng mga judges mismo.
00:30:06It sounds idealistic, but I think ultimately, evidence kasi yung pinaka-importante. And I think,
00:30:12you know, sobrang important nung role ng media in terms of getting the evidence out, just getting
00:30:19the evidence to the public. Kasi social media creates certain additional hoops before the
00:30:24public gets to know yung truth behind what's happening. And I say na important yung evidence
00:30:29because if you look at the last two impeachment trials, ERAP and Corona, yung political alliances
00:30:35for and or against the impeachable officer, at the beginning of the trial, hindi yun yung
00:30:42naging last vote or last outcome. So, in ERAP's case, the majority was much narrower than
00:30:49it was at the beginning of the trial. May bumaliktad talaga dun, at least on the second envelope
00:30:55question. Even allies of ERAP, certain allies voted with the 10 and were welcomed in EDSA
00:31:022. So yung kay Corona, makikita mo dun sa explanation of the votes ng senators yung feeling na parang
00:31:09I believe you as a good person or parang I believe na ano naman to, may political aspect
00:31:17din siya. But we cannot turn away from yung evidence, siya na malino na, you know, millions
00:31:23of dollars undeclared in a SALN. So, ultimately, kailangan i-triangulate yun eh. Yung strength
00:31:30of the evidence, the quality of the publicity of the trial, they all will impact yung alliances
00:31:37in the sense that you can have an alliance at the beginning, but ultimately, kailangan mo
00:31:42i-depend, i-depend sana yung position mo as a senator two years from now, na paano pag
00:31:48tinanong ka, ang dinaw-lino ng ebidensya ba ganito yung voto mo, whether for or against
00:31:52the vice president. So, if those factors come in play, then at least yung evidence will still
00:31:59be very material in how the last vote will be taken.
00:32:02So, it's possible that the vote may not necessarily follow current political alignments?
00:32:11Yes, kasi otherwise, we should just stop the trial right now kasi hindi aabot dun sa two-thirds
00:32:20na voto. But, you know, two things. One is, hindi reflective necessarily yung final vote dun sa
00:32:27initial alliances, as we discussed earlier. But the second is, sometimes yung processes
00:32:33like this, they matter for truth's sake, for accountability's sake. So, even if hindi ka
00:32:40sure dun sa voto mo, on the part of the prosecution, for example, I think no one is claiming that
00:32:44they have two-thirds as of now. But sometimes for the sake of finding out the truth, for the
00:32:51sake of insisting on accountability in government, yung proseso na ito worth taking siya.
00:32:58And, honestly, on the part of the vice president, it's a good opportunity for her to clear her
00:33:02name as well. Kasi for the last year and a half, na puro prosecution yung narinig natin
00:33:08in terms of what evidence they have against her, ano ba yung mga ginawa niya allegedly, yung
00:33:13that truth-telling character, I think, makes impeachment worth it.
00:33:16Yeah. Pero I guess that begs the question which we're all asking now is how important is
00:33:25truth, really, in our day and age, no? Kasi nga, maaring lumabas ang truth, pero people
00:33:34might not even care. Because, you know, mas importante yung political loyalties nila.
00:33:42Yes. And I think that emphasizes, again, yung political character of impeachment in the
00:33:49sense na, unlike a real trial or a trial in court, yung impeachment hindi lang on trial
00:33:56yung impeachable officer. The senators are also on trial and the public is view as watching what
00:34:02they will do. But the public is itself on trial. How important are values of good government
00:34:08accountability sa publiko based on how they will react to certain actions or moves in the
00:34:15impeachment? So, for example, in EDSA 2, the fact na nagkaroon ng uprising or, you know,
00:34:20massing protests, not just in Manila but outside Manila, parang it's an indication na meron kasi
00:34:26tayong spirit na naniniwala tayo sa pananagutan, naniniwala tayo sa katotohanan. In the Corona
00:34:32impeachment side, when Chief Justice Corona, until he walked out, people were seeing that they might
00:34:38actually not have the two-thirds vote. Kasi it became very sympathetic, it took like persecution
00:34:43siya ni Chief Justice Corona. But the moment he went out and made it seem to people that he was
00:34:49not
00:34:49accountable to the public, then nag-change na naman yung public mood behind it. Itong
00:34:55kay VP Sarah na impeachment, you know, important din in a sense na after everything is said and
00:35:02banned, pag lumabas na lahat ng ebidensya, and whether for the evidence is weak or the evidence
00:35:08is strong, how the public react to it is also a trial of us. Parang tayo mismo, importante ba ba
00:35:14sa atin yung ganitong values? Or should we just move on? Which is, I think, what other
00:35:19people are asking.
00:35:21Okay, since this is a bit of impeachment history 101, nabanggit mo yung tatlong kaso so far,
00:35:28yung kay former President Joseph Estrada, which started in year 2000 and ended nga in
00:35:36January 2001. And then you mentioned itong si Chief Justice Renato Corona, who was the only
00:35:45one among all of those people impeached, who was convicted by the Senate, no? So that's
00:35:53another. You mentioned Renato Corona, and then of course si VP Sarah Dutete na may kasulukoyang
00:36:00trial. The other ones, just to mention the other ones, si former Chief Justice, Chief Justice
00:36:06Hilario Davide Jr., this is in year 2003, pero na-dismiss nga, hindi na umabot ng Senado
00:36:14yan, di ba? And then the ombudsman, under our Constitution kasi may mga ilang public
00:36:21officers, di ba? Starting with the President, Vice President, Chief Justice, ombudsman, and
00:36:26also other members of, uh, the Supreme Court, di ba? Uh, yung pwede yung ma-impeach.
00:36:31Plus chairs of the Constitutional Commission. So yun yung... Ah, yung COMELEC, that's
00:36:34right. Kasi nga, si Andres Bautista. Andres Bautista, yes. So basically, there have been
00:36:41six, uh, impeachment cases, uh, under the 1987 Constitution. It started with former President
00:36:48Estrada, and then Chief Justice Davide in 2003. Ombudsman, uh, Merceditas Gutierrez in
00:36:542011. Renato Corona, the only one who was convicted in 2012. Uh, and then Andres Bautista, who
00:37:02was COMELEC chair, um, and, and he was, uh, impeached in 2017. Pero nag-resigned siya before
00:37:09going to trial. And then, uh, si Sara Duterte na kasulukoy ang, uh, magsisimula na yung, uh,
00:37:16trial niya, no? So my question is, uh, the others resigned before, uh, going to trial or, or before
00:37:23the trial, uh, ended, uh, no? Uh, why did Chief Justice Corona, uh, uh, decide to continue with the trial
00:37:34when he could have resigned and saved himself from having that record of being, being the only
00:37:39one convicted? So, I wouldn't know personally, you know, and I don't think, uh, Chief Justice
00:37:45Corona has written out, uh, memoirs explaining that decision to continue. Uh, I think, but looking
00:37:52at this objectively based on the records in, of the impeachment, there were probably two
00:37:57reasons. Uh, una, um, I think at that point, and he was the last witness, I think, presented,
00:38:03uh, for the defense, uh, by the defense. Parang things were going his way. They were able
00:38:08to explain some of the evidence against him, no? So parang, in a way, and remember,
00:38:14mataas ang thresholds in impeachment. You don't need to win a majority to convict. You
00:38:18need to win two-thirds to convict. So parang may chance na hindi aabot dun sa two-thirds.
00:38:23So he, basically, he miscalculated? Possibly, right? Yeah. But the critical miscalculation
00:38:30was, no, I think, when his blood sugar dropped and napatayo siya, he left the Senate, uh,
00:38:35chamber. The reaction of the senators was just, okay, shocked kasi. So, but that might
00:38:41have figured in. The other was, he had nothing to lose at that point by continuing kasi if
00:38:48he resigns as Chief Justice, he will not be reappointed, uh, anymore. Or parang it would be
00:38:54difficult to make a case for reappointing a Chief Justice who has resigned. So,
00:38:58tuloy na lang yung laban niya. And I think, if you look at the larger
00:39:03events around that, uh, yung chief, si Chief Justice Corona, uh, phrased, framed
00:39:09his impeachment fight, actually a fight for judicial independence. It was, um, his
00:39:15claim, uh, there was a larger cause, in other words. Yes, that the Aquino
00:39:18administration was going hard against the court, and part of it involved
00:39:22defending the court. So, may famous scene of him speaking in the Supreme Court balcony
00:39:28in front of all of the employees, parang Alayvita, where parang he, uh, asserts, no, yung
00:39:35judicial independence, uh, and parang hindi ata pasok doon sa fighter narrative na yun
00:39:42for him to just back out, no, of the impeachment. So, parang, uh, I guess he had, he had more
00:39:48to lose, uh, rent to gain if umalis siya, uh, while the trial was ongoing.
00:39:53Itong nabanggit natin, uh, six, uh, impeachment cases, they're all under the
00:39:581987 constitution. We've had two previous constitutions, which have also had
00:40:05impeachment provisions, di ba? The 1935 constitution also had provisions
00:40:10pertaining to impeachment. Uh, and then there, I think there are only two, um, impeachment
00:40:16cases, no, under the 1935 constitution, si, si Quirino and, um, Makapagal? Uh, I think
00:40:24Quirino and, I forget the other one, but did not proceed kasi to, to a trial, na mamatayan
00:40:29sa... Pareho yata hindi umabot sa Senado. And then, of course, in 1973, uh, was kind of
00:40:35a Marcos constitution, uh, uh, but basically, ang isang, I think I recall, uh, reading one
00:40:43of your articles where, uh, it, it was a lot harder to, uh, to impeach under the previous
00:40:51constitutions kasi you needed, I think, three-fourths of, uh, to even initiate a, um, impeachment
00:40:58in the house, uh, under the 1935, 1935, and you needed three-fourths, both, as opposed
00:41:03to two-thirds, to convict. That led you to calling the 1987 constitution the accountability
00:41:11constitution? At tama ba yung reading ko sa yung, uh, uh, thoughts about that?
00:41:17Yes. I think, you know, scholars, constitution, and, uh, lawyers are always trying to find
00:41:24meaning sa constitution kasi it's a very short document tau yun, yung sinet na parang
00:41:29ang daming bagay na hindi accounted for. If you just look at the Senate drama the last
00:41:33few weeks, laging questions of interpretation of the constitution yun. So, one of the things
00:41:38that, uh, we've been trying to theorize is, pag may vagueness in the constitution, how
00:41:45do you understand it when the text isn't clear anymore, no? Or, even if the text is clear
00:41:51but parang contrary to the purpose of the constitution, na parang mo iunawain yung
00:41:55sarilong batas mo. So, one of the things that I tried to do was to look at ano ba yung
00:41:59possible parang ways to frame the constitution. One is potentially a social justice constitution.
00:42:05Half of the constitution's provisions are on social justice, which means, um, hindi walang
00:42:12assumption of equality in the market, may role ang government to play in public life,
00:42:17uh, and to provide for people. Uh, but the other way to also understand it, and hindi
00:42:22inconsistent, is freely accountability. So, traced yan to EDSA being, uh, or EDSA 1, the
00:42:29birth of the 87 constitution, being a fight not just for human rights, which is on the
00:42:34social justice side, but also for, uh, anti-corruption, no? Uh, and then sa
00:42:39plunder of the, uh, first Marcos administration. Uh, and, and in many ways, parang that
00:42:46accountability framing should help us understand ano unawain yung some of these
00:42:51more difficult provisions of the constitution. So, I think in the article that I wrote that
00:42:56you were mentioning, marami kasing issues in the last impeachment of VP Sarah last year,
00:43:01where, where open questions talaga siya, and it got really a lot of lawyers, mostly
00:43:07excited, how do you resolve it? So, yung suggestion was, you know, rather than engage in itong
00:43:13mental gymnastics of how, what these words mean, that's why to read it.
00:43:16Yeah, what was the intent, di ba? What was the intent?
00:43:19Yeah. Para ko, go to accountability. Kasi, ultimately, yun naman yung, what the impeachment
00:43:24provisions are, are for. They are, they are under a provision or a article of the constitution
00:43:29called accountability of public officers. So, parang how else, uh, should we understand
00:43:34it? Um, so, in other words, attorney, if, if, in case there's vagueness or kind of, uh,
00:43:41debate or argument about the meaning of things or the, or the intent of this or that, uh,
00:43:48provision, ang sinasabi mo, let's side with the interpretation that facilitates accountability.
00:43:56Yes. And not to escape accountability. Yes. And I think if you want an example of, of
00:44:03this, no, uh, one of the key open issues now is what happens if, halimbawa, si vice president
00:44:10Duterte resigns, um, while the impeachment trial is ongoing. During the Arab impeachment,
00:44:17he resigned while the trial was ongoing, but the Senate decided not to continue. So we thought,
00:44:22uh, objectively, uh, objectively, when we were writing itong piece na to, that that is also what
00:44:27most scholars, uh, impeachment veterans would think. But we were surprised na last year when
00:44:34we hosted the forum, yung sense talaga, universally of academics, former senators, former justices
00:44:41was impeachment as a second consequence, which is disqualification, uh, in the text, no? Parang
00:44:48shall not exceed removal and disqualification, yung penalty for impeachment. Um, and therefore,
00:44:54if you will allow a, a trial to end in the middle of the truth finding proceeding, na matapos
00:45:03na lang siya, uh, kasi magre-resign yung public officer, that officer will be able to run
00:45:07again, then parang iniwasan mo yun yung accountability. So the reading according to accountability
00:45:13would mean, tapusin niyo yung trial hanggang dulo, regardless of further the official
00:45:16resigns.
00:45:18Okay. Well, that's, of course, very relevant now because of the scenario you just mentioned.
00:45:23Si Andres Bautista, si Merceditas Gutierrez, they, they resigned. Si President Estrada,
00:45:28they resigned. Pero ang sinasabi mo, um, dapat ituloy. But, but what if the Senate does not
00:45:36want to continue? I mean, is this a matter for the Supreme Court now? I mean, who, who will
00:45:42actually decide? And of course, I know you have, that's a, that's a, that's a, that's
00:45:46another matter altogether, no? Yung involvement in the Supreme Court, dito sa mga ganitong
00:45:50bagay, no? But, uh, that's your opinion, no? That's your, uh, that's what you, that's,
00:45:57that's what you and me, perhaps other scholars would like to see happen, na ituloy nga, for,
00:46:02for accountability reasons. Pero ultimately, that's up to the Senate?
00:46:07I think it's ultimately up to the Senate. So, uh, and I think you want to look at it
00:46:13from two perspectives. One is whether the court will get involved. So, uh, you, the Supreme
00:46:19Court. Yes, the Supreme Court will get involved. So, it's highly unusual for the court
00:46:23na tapos na yung away politika, sasabi niya mag-away pa kayo ulit. Parang yung continue yung
00:46:27away niya yan. Normally, yung court tries to avoid that type of intervention. So, I would be
00:46:32very surprised if a petition will succeed na ituloy niya yung trial, and the court
00:46:36will say, yes, it is your duty to continue it. Uh, the second is history. So, the decision
00:46:44to continue with the trial, I think the Constitution says you should do it. But just because the
00:46:49Constitution says na dapat siya gawin, may limits yung power ng court to order its
00:46:54co-equal branches. So, the Constitution might say one thing, and pwede sabihin ng
00:46:59court na you should do that. But whether the Senate will follow is a different thing
00:47:03altogether. And if you go, if you ask Senate President Lelon, you know, we asked him
00:47:08last year, if your position now, uh, S.P. Lelon is that dapat maipatuloy yung trial,
00:47:15regardless of whether the Vice President resigns, how do you justify what the Senate
00:47:19did in 2001? Which is, binismiss nila yung case, right? And he said na, I think they
00:47:25made the political judgment that it was just better for, you know, healing and
00:47:30reconciliation, uh, na itigil na lang natin yung trial kasi aandar naman na yung
00:47:34plunder cases. No one could have predicted that ERAP would have mounted a very close to
00:47:40successful run, no, in 2010 when he ran against Pinoy. So, uh, even yung decision to
00:47:47continue with it, minsan may political judgment din na, na involved. Uh, but I think yung edge of
00:47:52two circumstances are highly unusual kasi may, may popular uprising and parang you
00:47:57really needed to, to heal certain rifts, uh, in public then.
00:48:01But of course, uh, the senators today are going to cite that, that case, di ba? I mean,
00:48:08the president is very important in your, in your profession and in, in politics, di ba?
00:48:14Yes, yes. Definitely you will expect them to cite the, the Estrada president na tapos na
00:48:20ng trial, di ba? Go home, uh, let it go kung, uh, in case mag-resign yung, uh, vice
00:48:28president. But, you know, it's been a good 20 years since yung ERAP impeachment and
00:48:33presidents inform us, but there are also other presidents that may further inform
00:48:37us since then nagkaroon ng impeachment in the United States where we take exactly the
00:48:41same rule, uh, where si Trump in 2000, uh, 2021, after he stepped down from office, no?
00:48:49Nagpatuli yung Senate in the trial, uh, for the January 6 riots against him. So they, uh,
00:48:56impeached him while he was still in office. They did trial after he left office. He ultimately
00:49:02won that vote, no? Kasi mataas ang impeachment threshold din sa US similar to ours. But the point
00:49:08is, it shows you na there is sometimes reasons to continue with the trial. Kasi they don't
00:49:13only concern the public officer who is guilty being a danger to the current public, they might
00:49:20constitute a larger danger to the public in the future or to other democratic values or
00:49:26ideas.
00:49:28Okay, may, may usapin ngayon na this whole concept of accountability through impeachment or
00:49:33through, you know, filing of maybe plunder charges against particular, uh, politicians is, is just
00:49:41another word for, you know, uh, political retaliation or, or, or political warfare, di ba? So how do we
00:49:50ensure that itong sinasabi mong accountability, no? Na hindi, hindi gamitin nga na, uh, as a, as a weapon, no?
00:49:58Ma, ma, ma-weaponize yan for political retaliation. Kasi nga, um, alimbawa, I mean, we know that
00:50:05Vice President, uh, Duterte is leading in the surveys. Kung ma-quit siya or she resigns and
00:50:12is still allowed to run again, ade, kung sino man yung, I guess that's, that's, that's, ano, that's a
00:50:17damper on maybe some people's, uh, willingness to, uh, to pursue this case, uh, against her, uh,
00:50:25uh, the possibility of, of making them accountable, uh, or, uh, you know, uh, or, or being the
00:50:35subject of political retaliation under the guise of accountability. I mean, maari ba
00:50:40maging endless cycle ito? I think that that's fair, uh, if you have a government na yung
00:50:48prosecution of cases, the, um, the filing of cases is solely determined by one person
00:50:55and unchecked yung tao na yun. So you saw that in the last administration to a certain
00:50:59extent, di ba? Senators, uh, Senator Laila, second example, uh, may drug charges which
00:51:06ended up all being dismissed against her, uh, when the administration left. Parang, uh, you
00:51:12can see how lawfare has that potential na baril mo yan ngayon if you're on the winning
00:51:18side, but when the elections happen, tas nag-reverse yung fortunes mo, ikaw naman yung
00:51:22on the other end of the, uh, of, of the gun. So, uh, I think the way na iwasan yan
00:51:30would be, again, two things. One is, you know, institutions matter. Institutions like the
00:51:37ombudsman matter. Kasi if you have an independent ombudsman, hindi yan madidiktahan.
00:51:42Nung presidente, um, if you have a strong, uh, justice system along with the ombudsman,
00:51:48hindi sila matatakot to rule against the administration. So, ngayon, malakas yung
00:51:53filing ng cases, uh, I think there is a fair observation that many of these cases
00:51:59don't happen to hit the president's allies. So, kailangan yung second point, which is
00:52:04public vigilance. And I think that's also something that we lost in the last 10 years.
00:52:09Yung, parang the public just caring genuinely about whether nagtatrabaho ba yung
00:52:14gobyerno nila. Uh, it, in public discourse to a certain extent, nag, nag-descend siya
00:52:21into yung parang fans, fans na lang yung, uh, yung public of certain public officers, no?
00:52:29Parang, uh, either fans or faithful, namamal, uh, nananampalataya sila. Instead of it being
00:52:37the reverse na, in a democratic system, tayo naman kasi yung boss nung public officers. So,
00:52:43I think you've got encouraged by the last year in the sense na yung public has been
00:52:47quite vigilant compared to maybe the most vigilant in the last 10 years. And may hope na
00:52:53the impeachment gives them another opportunity to watch multiple institutions closely at the
00:52:59same time. Actually, all three badges of government, even the Supreme Court, will somehow be
00:53:03under-scrutiny, uh, in the next few weeks and months, uh, dahil dito sa impeachment.
00:53:08One aspect of the 1935, uh, constitution that, that is sometimes highlighted is, uh, you know,
00:53:16it puts value, more value on institutional stability. Uh, uh, uh, that's why it's, it was
00:53:23harder to impeach under the 1935. Ito, 1987, it's easier to impeach, no? Kaya nagkaroon
00:53:29ng, ng anim na impeachment, uh, cases, no? Uh, so that's why also people like you call it
00:53:37the accountability constitution, no? But, but, uh, I'm wondering, historically, have impeachment
00:53:44trials strengthened or weakened public confidence in democratic institutions?
00:53:52That's a very hard question to answer, no? But I think on the whole, yes, um, during
00:53:58ERAP's time, uh, and mahirap kasi i-segregate, eh, yung effect of it being just the, uh, the
00:54:05first two decades after Edsa One, a revolutionary moment, um, with the fact that the impeachment
00:54:10parang gave Edsa One a second wind, uh, all the way to the GMA administration, uh, the
00:54:16same forces against ERAP, or the same civil society that was so vigilant during ERAP's
00:54:21impeachment, where, uh, is the same civil society that was vigilant during the 10 years
00:54:26of GMA amid the various corruption scandal. So maganding effect niya in that sense, na
00:54:31parang, you know, buzzword talaga yung accountability at the time, um, good government as a focus,
00:54:37corruption was, uh, parang being monitored closely. So maganding effect son in that sense.
00:54:44Yung sa corona impeachment, I, I, I, I think you start to see the dangers of it being
00:54:48conflated. Um, kasi on the one hand, I do think that not declaring a SALN, uh, or not
00:54:55declaring your, your wealth as somebody who also files a SALN, uh, honestly, especially
00:55:01chief, kung gano'ng kalaki yung amounts, mahirap yung in justify, no? Kasi why would
00:55:05you not put it there? And to that extent, I think fair yung charges against him, uh, in
00:55:12impeachment. But I think given how in the president was ineffectively prosecuting yung
00:55:20case ni, uh, Chief Justice Corona then taken with revelations after na, uh, pork barrel
00:55:27was used, uh, allegedly to sway certain votes, no? For the impeachment. Parang, mawalang
00:55:34kanilang tiwala dun. So I guess it's not really the impeachment per se, as an institution na
00:55:39may effect on democratic health or better democracy. It's what we do with impeachment, what happens
00:55:44around impeachment. If, pwede siyang gamitin definitely as a platform for better government,
00:55:50but if it's used clearly as a way to weaponize, or parang mostly as a way to weaponize a proceeding,
00:55:56even though Americans were warned by their founding fathers about this. So Federalist 65
00:56:02says na they recognize na impeachments can start very much as a partisan activity, na obviously
00:56:09merong, uh, party A versus party B diyan, but ultimately they should evolve throughout the
00:56:15process into finding things that everyone can agree on. And I think we have that opportunity
00:56:22because of our tradition of impeachment, how it has developed sa Pilipinas, but also
00:56:26because of how long this one, this coming one will be, if toto nga na 90 plus days yung
00:56:31mangyayari.
00:56:32Uh, ano mo, yung isang irony na, uh, that's probably obvious to a lot of people is despite all of
00:56:40these impeachment cases. So we've had six under what you call the accountability constitution
00:56:47where it's, it's become easier to impeach a senior public officer. Parang the amount of
00:56:58graft and corruption that seems to be going on now, just based on the amounts, no? I mean,
00:57:03our mind boggling, much more mind boggling than the amounts that were, for example, uh, discussed
00:57:10during the time of Makapagal when, when there was a complaint against him, or even, even in terms
00:57:15of, yung mga amounts na nandun sa sal and ni, ni, ni Corona, or, or even, ano, even dwarfs
00:57:21whatever, uh, was, uh, whatever Estrada was being accused of. I mean, we're talking about
00:57:27parang a trillion, trillion pesos worth of graft and corruption now, di ba? Uh, we've, we've
00:57:33all heard about this in the last, uh, year or so. So parang, is it, ano, is this, this,
00:57:39is this a failure of the system? I mean, you're, that's the reason why you have impeachment.
00:57:44That's why you had a conviction, di ba? Is, is to show the public that this could happen
00:57:50to, uh, politicians. This could happen to, you know, a Supreme Court justice. So you
00:57:55better shape up, no? I mean, this is a way of cleaning up government and, and society.
00:58:00And yet, parang, it, I don't know, it's, may, may have even gotten worse.
00:58:06It's a fair question. Kasi I think, uh, certainly correlated yung high number of impeachments
00:58:11in 87 with, uh, the growth of graft in government. Kung titignan lang natin, are they following
00:58:19the same patterns? And the answer is, probably yes, even without hard data. But I don't think
00:58:25it's necessarily causated. I don't think that impeachment is the reason why graft has exploded
00:58:30from the public accountability side. Hindi lang kasi, impeachment is an institution, but
00:58:35there are many other institutions that have failed persistently in the last decade. Um,
00:58:41and I think while it might cast impeachment or give too much burden on the upcoming impeachment,
00:58:47um, regardless of where you stand, yung trials itself, at least yung trials na natuloy,
00:58:53so ERAP, Corona, the last two times, were an important self-examination, uh, moment for
00:59:01the public, eh, about values that are important to you, or values that are important to the
00:59:06public. In ERAP's case, hindi lang siya about the graft, alleged graft. Of course, that was
00:59:12very important coming from out just 13 years after Marcos, 14 years after Marcos. But important
00:59:19din yung, yung questions dun about what do you expect yung moral uprightness of your public
00:59:26officials. And it became an important thing behind the scenes in the impeachment, even though
00:59:32hindi siya among the articles of impeachment. In CJ Corona's case, it became an important public
00:59:39conversation about you have empowered the Supreme Court in 87 to do all of these things. What happens
00:59:46when that empowerment goes to fire? So, important to the examination moment in China, should
00:59:51you keep some of these institutions in check? So, I think you expect those types of conversations
00:59:56in the current impeachment just by looking at the last, uh, failed impeachment ng kay BP Sara
01:00:03in 2025. Because yung conversation that was coming up around that time was, hindi na ba talaga
01:00:09importante yung good government sa public natin? I mean, 700 million, allegedly, is a small
01:00:16amount compared to the 3 billion flood control. It is still 700 million. That is...
01:00:23Mind-boggling nga eh, yung mga amounts ngayon, di ba? It's a huge amount. And parang hindi ba talaga
01:00:29natin pwede habulin yung public officer for that? Or parang yung Senate ba natin hindi nila
01:00:34ipopolis yung ibang branches? Captured ba talaga siya ng politics? So, madaming ganong conversations
01:00:39that happen in public because figuratively, the rest of the country watches the single proceeding.
01:00:45Okay. So, looking ahead, no? So, what historical markers should observers, like your law students,
01:00:53no? Ano dapat yung inoobserve natin dito?
01:00:57I think very important is what has happened in July 6, no? Which is yung opening statements.
01:01:06If those opening statements were delivered, then it would create kasi a good indication of
01:01:14ano ba yung narrative behind the cases. As a former trial lawyer, sometimes madalian sa judge
01:01:22even without painting a narrative. Kasi yung judge, pag nag-decide on many cases, checklist yan eh,
01:01:27do you meet the elements or not? But yung public doesn't think that way. Or non-lawyers don't
01:01:32think that way. So yung tali nung kwento, importante yan. Those types of opportunities to lay out
01:01:36yung buong kwento nung prosecution e nung depensa, parang importante yan nabantayan.
01:01:41The other would be the critical witnesses. So marami kasing witnesses that will be presented
01:01:50on the basis of partly drama, partly performance. So just with all due respect, as an example,
01:01:58yung Mary Grace Piatos na witness, interesting yun kasi kung hindi talaga totoong tao yun,
01:02:03you will have an empty seat there. So may ganun na drama na created by it.
01:02:10But on the whole, may ganun kasi mga dokumento na supposedly malinaw for either side.
01:02:16Though important yun kasi easily digestible by the public yun. But I think the third thing you
01:02:22need to watch or we need to watch, it would be how the senators deal with each other.
01:02:29It is not unusual for impeachment to be proxy argued by senators in the Philippines.
01:02:39Even in the United States, that has happened. So if you look at the Arab impeachment,
01:02:44Senator Miriam, best in peace, was one of those na parang seen as defending the strata side.
01:02:52That famous incident where nagkaroon ng walkout na was in the middle of questioning a prosecution witness.
01:02:59In the Chief Justice Corona's impeachment, Senator Miriam was also involved.
01:03:04But you also had certain senators who were supposedly proxies for the Aquino administration arguing their side.
01:03:10So, I'm a little worried kasi other senators have observed this.
01:03:16The unusual thing about yung current na senado natin, it's not so much na polarized sila.
01:03:22I mean, that happens in past senates.
01:03:24I think that it's become incredibly personal yung hawaii nila or yung galit nila for each other.
01:03:31So, kahit sila mismo, I think kailangan bantayan kasi many of the good or the information that we got from
01:03:38yung Estrada and Corona impeachments
01:03:40actually didn't come out in the lawyer's questioning.
01:03:42They came out in the senator's questioning kasi hindi mo pwede objektan yun.
01:03:47Like, unlike the other types of questions that the other lawyers or that the lawyers may raise,
01:03:52pag yung senator judge yung nagtanong, walang kang choice but to answer, even if potentially objectionable yan in court.
01:03:58So, interesting yung, I think for the public to see yung dynamic of the senators.
01:04:05If they're very much split as the trial goes on, then I don't think you can expect a conviction despite
01:04:12how strong the evidence is.
01:04:14So, it's a long 90 days if matatapos all the way to 90 days.
01:04:19Of course, there's an option on the part of the prosecution kasi at night to drop certain grounds,
01:04:24or both sides to drop certain witnesses.
01:04:26But it will be important for the public to watch.
01:04:30Because I think the Senate, as you see from the last month, really does listen or watch the public.
01:04:36It's like the temperature of the public and your acceptance for what they're doing there.
01:04:42So, you know, there's been a history of senators being proxies or being proxy, I guess, what do you call
01:04:49it?
01:04:49Proxy defenders or defense lawyers for the person on trial.
01:04:54In this particular Senate, I mean, we know, we essentially know where the senators stand as far as the person
01:05:02on trial is concerned.
01:05:03Either kakampi ka or kritik ka or kalabang ka ni Vice President Sara Duterte.
01:05:09So, these senators now, bilang judges, are obliged to be what? Impartial?
01:05:19Parang, even though everyone perceives them already as being, you know, may kulay na or, you know, you're already in
01:05:27this camp versus that camp.
01:05:31But, di ba mahirap na mag-project ngayon na, I'm going to be an impartial?
01:05:36Are they obliged to project that now despite their reputations and all of their statements in the past, pro or
01:05:44against somebody, something?
01:05:46They are absolutely required to do it.
01:05:49Political neutrality is something na hindi lang in the Senate rules.
01:05:53It's something they swore to a few weeks ago.
01:05:56So, they have to do it.
01:05:57Now, how they do it is the interesting part.
01:05:59Kasi, definitely making statements out to the media might not be advisable.
01:06:05Kasi parang, clearly, from the judge's perspective, even in a real court, hindi naman nagpa-public statements yung judge.
01:06:13And so, you know, trying to sequester themselves from yung public media questions on this might be critical.
01:06:21The second is, even in the questioning, and I say that kanina, Senator Mayim defending Corona or defending ERA,
01:06:29I say that with tentativeness.
01:06:31Kasi, those questions were fair when asked.
01:06:34And I think it's in the way you ask the question.
01:06:37Not just, sorry, not just in the way you ask the question, but dun sa substance nung tanong.
01:06:41Kung ikaw yung parang other side na kina-cross-examine yung testigo,
01:06:45tapos ang tagal-tagal nung questioning mo,
01:06:47mapaisip naman talaga yung public eh, na parang mas matagal pang airtime nung senator kasi dun sa lawyer.
01:06:53And that might not be a good thing.
01:06:55The third might be, as a way to preserve political neutrality,
01:06:59like no one is pretending, wala naman nagpapanggap na walang bias yung mga senators na to.
01:07:04Kasi may affiliation sila when they ran for office.
01:07:06But it doesn't mean that we don't expect them to still act neutrally.
01:07:14And again, babalik ka dun sa aspect of the vote in the impeachment being a moral question.
01:07:20You see that in the example of Lito Lapid.
01:07:23For example, in the 2012 impeachment of Corona,
01:07:28morally coded yung language na sinasabi niya.
01:07:30And I think all of that is important for our senators kasi we don't have surveys to work on right
01:07:36now.
01:07:36But my sense is mababa yung trust ng public si Senate as an institution and their members.
01:07:42So important for them, din itong opportunity yung impeachment,
01:07:46for them to recover a lot of the goodwill that was lost
01:07:49because of the various rigodons in the last few months, among others.
01:07:54Okay, so just winding down, decades from now, or maybe 50 years from now,
01:07:59what aspect of this process, this impeachment and trial,
01:08:05do you think legal scholars like yourself,
01:08:08and just thinking about in the future,
01:08:10anong aspeto nito yung tingin mo magiging pinakasignificant para sa future scholars?
01:08:18My guess is that, and it's something we haven't talked about now,
01:08:24it's in the way that the Supreme Court has shaped the process.
01:08:30We are at the point today only because hindi natuloy yung trial last year.
01:08:36And hindi lang natuloy yung trial last year because of certain orders by the Supreme Court.
01:08:41So both in the initial order, but then even yung final decision or resolution that came out in 2026.
01:08:49We have a conventional wisdom from the 1987 constitution
01:08:53that we want the court to be more involved even in political questions
01:08:57because we know what happens when yung Supreme Court natin umiiwas sa issue
01:09:03dahil lang supposedly political yung question.
01:09:06People blame the Supreme Court for what happened in Marcos in 1973
01:09:11when martial law was effectively constitutionalized
01:09:14kasi yung Supreme Court decided not to intervene in that case.
01:09:17So in 1987, meron tayong parang shift in understanding that
01:09:22in India, the court should get involved.
01:09:24But I think last year was the first time in a long time
01:09:27that you started to see even the strongest defenders of the court question that premise.
01:09:33Do you really want to not just traditionalize everything, but to legalize everything?
01:09:40Or do you want a more mature democracy where law and politics work hand in hand?
01:09:45Or may healthy interaction between the two of them?
01:09:48Because if that were the case, then yung political process in the impeachment last year
01:09:52would have played out, di ba?
01:09:54Hayaan nyo sila to panindigan nila yung boto nila sa house
01:09:57if it turns out that VP Sarah is popular or let the evidence speak for itself.
01:10:01So I think yun yung one of the things that scholars will study.
01:10:05Assuming, I mean, we're just looking at the first few days of the trial, no?
01:10:08Baka marami pang drama na mangyari later on.
01:10:11But unusual yung level of intervention that the Supreme Court has done in this impeachment.
01:10:16It has intervened in past impeachments, but it has never gotten to the point
01:10:21where it laid out specific guidelines for another co-equal branch.
01:10:27Na parang, ito yung kailangan nyo gawin para maging valid yung process nyo.
01:10:32And I think that fundamentally changed yung process na to.
01:10:35So, you see that because in the House of Representatives,
01:10:38sobrang tagal nung committee hearings kasi parang mini-trial na nga yung nangyayari.
01:10:44And then in the Senate, you have an unusual arrangement now where nagkaroon ng pre-trial.
01:10:48Something that you only really see in court.
01:10:49It's a good thing, it helps the process, but it's only something that you see in court.
01:10:54So, all of that, I think, boils down to impeachment being depoliticized and further judicialized.
01:11:01I mean, in the final analysis, though, it really still is a political process.
01:11:05And I think delicado then for us to think that this will be anything close to a legal judicial procedure.
01:11:12Okay, that's a wise note to end on.
01:11:15So, thank you so much for your time, Attorney, and for sharing your perspective on this critical political and legal
01:11:23process.
01:11:24We all hope the country will be better for it.
01:11:27Attorney and Law Professor Paolo Tamase, Associate Dean of UP Law School.
01:11:33Maraming maraming salamat sayo.
01:11:35Thank you, Sir Lawi.
01:11:36Thank you, Podmates, for watching and listening until the very end of this podcast.
01:11:41Alam nyo na, nakakatalino ang mahabang attention span.
01:11:45Don't forget to like, subscribe, and binge watch our videos for more.
01:11:50Until the next pod, mabuhay kayo at ingat lagi.
Comments