The conviction of Renato Corona under Article II of the impeachment complaint against him should count as a victory in Philippine governance—first, by the successful completion of the impeachment process, and second, by setting the standard of accountability that should be met by our public officials. When the impeachment trial began, I wrote and Rappler posted an article where I shared what I thought were 8 markers of a good impeachment trial. In this article, I closed my series on impeachment by reflecting on 8 lessons from the impeachment of Mr. Corona.
Lesson 1: The Constitution is supreme.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. While this statement is easy to make, the Corona case shows how dangerously easy it is to reach conflicting conclusions, even without malicious intent. There have been cases cited during the impeachment where failures of SALN (Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and net Worth) disclosure have led to removal of rank-and-file personnel. Yet society has alarmingly overlooked the lessons there and then. Because until the issue recently involved a “big fish”, it never seized the public’s attention or agenda the way it did now. As with the Parable of Talents, it behooves us to be faithful in the small matters—the small cases—as we feel we should be in large matters, or the more sensational cases. It determines the consistency of the Constitution’s interpretation—and sets a signpost for all public officials to follow.
In addition, we can say that the successful conclusion of the impeachment has demonstrated the strength of our constitutional institutions (or at least of impeachment), and the faith of the Filipino people in the same. While it is not a perfect faith, it is a start—and a marked improvement in the mood of the country compared to eleven years ago, when our faith was so shattered some refused to see the process through.
Lesson 2: Preparation is essential.
Impeachment may be sui generis and the rules may be different from a criminal trial. Yet like any trial, one’s case must be made carefully and thoroughly. Early on in the proceedings, this lack of preparation became the prosecution’s weakness, fencing against an able defense team led by former Justice Serafin Cuevas. In the end, it came down to facts—but the convoluted path to those facts, as the impeachment complaint was trimmed down, the accusations of “fishing for evidence”—threatened to discredit the prosecution’s argument in the eyes of the Senator-Judges.
Throughout the trial, I criticized the prosecution for its lack of preparation. But it is also important to give credit to where it is deserved; as sloppy as it was, the prosecution was able to prove a prima facie case at least on Article 2 which in turn forced the defense to present witnesses – Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales and Mr. Corona himself – that backfired against their case.
Lesson 3: Professionalism should be norm.
At times this impeachment had felt vindictive, certainly emotional, with passions proverbially running over on both sides (and even the Senate as well). Although some of history’s best lawyers are also masters of the thespian arts (the Roman statesman and republican Cicero is notable for exhaustive rhetorical preparations), in the end the true credibility of any argument partly rests on its professional delivery.
Himself a lawyer, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile certainly gave a command performance, especially in the proceedings’ most critical moments (e.g., Corona’s sudden departure from the stand; the closing arguments and his interpellation of Justice Cuevas), but the greatest mark of that performance is his professionalism, marked by his attitudes of mutual respect, stern fairness, and learned reference to jurisprudence. This gave the impeachment a defined structure that all could reasonably follow, and the gravitas to command respect and credibility.
Lawyer Mario Bautista’s rebuttal to Corona’s accusations of evidence-manufacture last May 22 should also be remembered in this light: “We are lawyers here”: a sharp reminder of the lawyer’s obligation under the law. Win or lose, lawyers can be likened to poker players: you play with the hand you have (or on the law and on the facts), and let the game (the jury) decide the results. Both the prosecution and the defense have played their hands to the utmost. If the impeachment has ended on a clear and concise note, then to them both is given due credit for their professionalism. It should also serve as an inspiration to the rest of government—elected, appointed, and employed—to do our duty, even in the face of all odds.
Lesson 4: Respect, among government institutions, should be maintained.
Pundits—including myself—have previously warned that, if this impeachment had gone badly, it could have resulted in a constitutional crisis, particularly between the Supreme Court and the Senate. Thankfully, the process had managed to avert such a crisis, out of mutual respect between said parties. That is one of the impeachment’s great triumphs: the respect accorded to other agencies of government, through the respect of due process, jurisdiction, and reasoned argument.
Some (with reason) have also described the impeachment as an Executive-Judiciary conflict, given President Aquino’s own beliefs on the matter. I argue that he is entitled to those beliefs, as we are to our own. Substantively, there is no dangerous conflict here—the Senate’s professionalism and respect has seen to that. My worry, however, was the vehemence of his criticisms against Corona. Especially coming from the President of the Republic, his passion might have provoked (or more likely failed to appease) the dark, vindictive mood in society accompanying the impeachment. As I have written also in Rappler, the impeachment should be a moment of truth and love, of country and of all the parties concerned. As the leader of Filipinos, President Aquino can best set the example to follow: to highlight the need for governance reform, and to heal the wounds of the process.
Lesson 5: The role of citizens can be crucial.
Government respecting its citizens should be elemental and fundamental. There were times the Senate had dropped the ball on this one. Harvey Keh comes to mind. For example/ While the questions and critiques posed to him were fair, the manner by which Senators Santiago and Estrada posed their comments was not. The best example was still Senator Enrile who, while certainly and rightfully angered, maintained his respect for the witness throughout his critique.
The government also deserves due respect, even given its flaws and inadequacies. This respect I speak of is not that demanded by a despot, but that freely given by a civic-minded freeman. It is the mark of a citizen’s readiness to engage in civic dialogue, policy deliberation, and its execution. Private prosecutor Vitaliano Aguirre’s famous reaction to Senator Santiago, amusing as it was, even earning sympathies from some in society, in the long run is unhealthy for democracy, as is the vindictiveness of some of our netizens who may have invested too much passion into the impeachment proceedings. Civil discourse is at its richest and most productive if we listen to each other, despite our differences.
Lesson 6: Full Disclosure by public servants must be absolute.
While the defense had argued that Corona’s exclusion of his dollar accounts from his SALN was in “good faith”—meaning that he had no malicious intention in doing so—we should recognize that this is a very dangerous interpretation of “good faith.” As I’ve argued before, as a precedent it opens the wrong door for other public servants to follow through. Moreover, a lawyer and justice with Corona’s length of service would be aware of that danger, even if he minimized it in favor of privacy.
That is water under the bridge now, with the verdict. The real consequence of note is how the rest of government will follow through. Even if one may decry Corona’s challenge for a mutual waiver on bank confidentiality as a stunt in his interest, no one may deny that it’s in an honest public official’s best interest, even the honest ones, to actively disclose his SALN, to be voluntarily transparent, rather than to leave his obligation slaved to what can be called the “autopilot of procedure and legal minimums.” It is the best show of good faith that the Constitution’s framers would have applauded. Some public officials have declared they’ll meet Corona’s challenge. Publicity stunt or not, perhaps that’s a start.
Lesson 7: The Freedom of Information Act must be enacted.
Of all the lessons from the impeachment of Renato Corona, this is one of the more critical. The Philippines needs the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, Bill, or Law. The fruits of the impeachment will be best preserved if the Filipino people can help ensure that we don’t have to get to the point where we have to impeach another high official again, if we can create a culture of accountability and trust between the leader and the led. FOI is a powerful tool to achieve that, to preempt corruption by improving deterrence and enhancing citizen participation in governance.
Government is not the only one who can learn lessons here, though. FOI is also an equally critical component of the social accountability approach, which puts the details of policy execution-monitoring and feedback in the hands of trained private citizens. The approach also cultivates the healthy leader-led relationship so essential to public support and trust in government. With the impeachment of Renato Corona, we have shown the viability of accountability from on-high. We, the Filipino people, must now complete the picture, and provide the accountability from down-low. From penalizing officials, we must now help them make Philippine governance and accountability work.
Lesson 8: Impeachment is only the beginning of reform.
With the end of the impeachment trial, we are tempted to over-celebrate and think that the work of governance and judicial reform is done. Far from it; in fact, business as usual is likely unless we cement the gains. The Supreme Court, under the leadership of its acting chief Antonio Carpio, has started the ball rolling by releasing all their SALNS (including that of judges). For Congress, as discussed earlier, the passage of the freedom of information act is critical. And for the president, no other decision is as important as making the right choice for Chief Justice. As I have written elsewhere, choosing the right chief justice will cement the straight road of good governance and ensure that Aquino’s legacy will last a long time. How sad it would be if all the political will and capital spent is thrown away by choosing a chief justice that is an accommodation to political interests rather than one who has the qualities to lead the judiciary and the Supreme Court to a new era of accountability and reform.
Summary: Living the lessons of the Corona impeachment
Monumental as the conviction is, though, let it not blind us to other fruits of the impeachment, fruits which do not center greatly on Corona’s conviction, but which bear long-term effects on Philippine governance. There is a term called “counting coup”: to win prestige in battle without having to injure your opponent. Having secured the verdict of the impeachment court, we must now look beyond the ends of the court, or its purpose of rendering a verdict. In the final analysis, on these lessons we can safely say that President Noynoy Aquino’s hopes for change and reform rest, as do the maturation of our democratic and governance cultures.
Visit this website to access the article.
Tony La Viña 