The impeachment trial is a political proceeding and not a judicial proceeding. Rules on inhibition that apply to our court system do not apply to a political trial. There are as many senators who have been critical of the Corona court decisions as there have been defenders. If the rules of inhibition are strictly adhered to in a political proceeding then all the political positions taken by all the senator judges could be made basis of inhibition and there will be no one left to try the respondent.
Ultimately, in a very public trial like this one where the evidence, the line of questioning as well as the answers given for or against are to be seen and witnessed by the entire nation, it will be the public who will decide whether or not we will be biased and it will be the people who will judge us politicians by denying us their vote in any future election should they feel we were remiss or we failed to exercise discretion in our conduct as senator judges. This in essence helps describe the political nature of an impeachment proceeding.
2 comments:
When the "security of tenure" of the Supreme Court Chief Justice is left in the hands of the politicians, the principle of "security of tenure" is just but a political language semantically defined as "standing at the mercy of either 'leadership by force' or 'leadership by persuasion'". This is actually the flaw of democracy similar to tyranny because the tyrant is like a person standing in the cornfield who cut short all corns to make them lower than himself; while in democracy, the person cut any corn that is higher than himself so that all will be on equal footing. But by act of God, nature is not so, because it is a principle of nature that some are higher while others are lower, some are stronger while others are weaker, and so that even the strong can have an opportunity to serve their God by serving the weak.
Nevertheless, since democracy is the legal system of the Philippines, this is better than one with no legal system at all. And since the legal process of impeachment is followed, I am confident that justice have its share. Because by assumption and comparison, the exercise of favor and disfavor by the justices is restricted within the limits of their legal base, in which, through the force of habit and the mental connections developed through their legal study and experience, they became slaves to the pattern of their thoughts and habits that it is almost impossible for them to go against their thoughts and habits through the other way of injustice; and so is the Congressmen and Senators, who through their careers as "leaders by persuasion," they have developed thought patterns and habits that became their innate values which the general population admire, thus, by their leadership base, they have the qualification to judge the justices in accordance with the pervasive value system of our Filipino society.
And since Chief Justice Corona refused to inhibit himself in the case of CGMA, it is just fair for the good Senator not to inhibit himself.
I end commenting here, and with all due respect to other views.
"it will be the people who will judge us politicians by denying us their vote in any future election should they feel we were remiss or we failed to exercise discretion in our conduct as senator judges"
== and this (the elections) is not always an accurate test whether politicians have performed their duties accordingly. elections are popularity contests and you know it... in the Philippines, it is rarely about your qualifications and your credibility.
Post a Comment