I have mixed feelings about the ongoing impeachment trial of Philippine Chief Justice Renato Corona.  This is the first time in Philippine history that the highest magistrate of the land is being impeached. It is in this sense that this process is a momentous and a critical point in the country’s political life.  Unlike the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada (another first in the country’s records)  in 2001 brought about by an investigative report by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, the present case appears enmeshed in a web of political and legal maneuverings.  In 2001, journalists uncovered that Mr. Estrada was involved in gambling, corruption, and extramarital affairs. In the end, he was ousted from power but was eventually pardoned by former President Gloria Arroyo.

Corona’s trial, however, is a more complex and sensitive proceeding.  So, Corona was given a ‘midnight appointment’ by Arroyo on May 17th, 2010.   Arroyo’s term ended on June 30 when newly elected President Noynoy Aquino was  sworn in office.  Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution provides that:

“Two months immediately before the next Presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.”

Clearly, Arroyo violated the Constitution in appointing Corona. But then in March 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that appointments to the judiciary are exempt from the constitutional ban.  It’s worth quoting Justice Conchita Morales who dissented from the decision:

“To begin with, judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and not in its individual members, much less in the Chief Justice alone. Notably, after Chief Justice Puno retires, the Court will have 14 members left, which is more than sufficient to constitute a quorum.”

Arroyo, meanwhile, faces several corruption charges filed in the Supreme Court.  How would Corona, her former executive secretary and chief legal counsel, decide on these cases?  Bear in mind that it was also Arroyo who appointed Corona as associate justice of the Supreme Court back in 2001.

However, President Noynoy Aquino’s interest in Hacienda Luisita is also problematic.  On April 24, the Supreme Court ruled that the hacienda owned by the Aquino family should be distributed to 6,000 farmers.  Is Aquino not motivated by personal vendetta because of this adverse decision?

Among the three branches of government,  the Supreme Court is the least transparent.  Marites Vitug’s Shadow of Doubt (I’ve just ordered the book) offers what seems like a clandestine tour to one of the most important institutions in the Philippines.  Here’s a thought from Ms. Vitug:

It is impossible to pore over this book without developing a keen awareness of how important change is in an institution we like to call the “last bulwark of democracy.”  I brought to this work a journalist’s inquiring mind, accompanied by the hope that this would spur a national conversation. And I take away from this book a deeper appreciation for the saving grace of a vigilant public.

Marites Danguilan-Vitug

Coronal’s  impeachment trial is NOT a trial of Corona and his family. It is a trial of the country’s institutions: the Supreme Court, Congress,  and the office of the President.  What we are witnessing at this point is the adversarial yet collegial functioning our institutions.  I certainly hope that at the end of this trial, we can say to each other and to the world that our justices, legislators and national leaders have not let us down as citizens of a nation badly in need of leaders with integrity and moral conviction.