THE creative minds of social media invented the term “bendalo” from Sen. Erwin Tulfo’s exhortation that “sometimes you have to bend the law in order to please the people.” These days, a coalition of forces whom I will call the Bendalo coalition for convenience, has started floating interpretations of the Constitution that are convenient for their partisan interests in connection with the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte. To be precise, Article XI, Section 3(6) of the 1987 Constitution states:
“The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”
The first of these fantastic interpretations that I have heard is that a senator who has not been administered an oath or affirmation (in the same manner as their colleagues) is barred from ultimately voting for conviction or acquittal in the impeachment trial. Members of the Bendalo coalition insist that a senator who has not taken the oath shall not even be counted as a senator-judge in the impeachment trial.
For the Bendalo coalition, a mere oath — the Constitution does not even specify what kind of affirmation is required or how such an oath shall be administered — differentiates a senator from a senator-judge in an impeachment trial. The original Senate resolution concerning the rules of procedure for impeachment trials does not say that any senator who fails to take an oath administered by the impeachment court’s presiding officer shall be barred from voting for conviction or acquittal in the impeachment trial, if such is even constitutional.
I never imagined that a mere ceremonial oath could possibly serve as a creative way to disenfranchise millions of Filipino voters through their duly elected representation from performing a vital task assigned to them by the Constitution. A vague ceremonial act serving to stop the performance of an official function is akin to blocking students from graduating just because they failed to attend the graduation rites. What complete and utter nonsense!
It is a mere ceremonial act! It cannot possibly guarantee that a senator will be an upright judge in the trial or conversely, automatically render the senator-judge unfit to serve as impeachment magistrate. How can a vague ceremonial act be imbued with very mystical powers like that? Again, what complete and utter nonsense!
Of course, taking an oath is better than not doing it, but how can an interpretation of a Senate resolution endow a mere ceremony the power to upend the constitutional mandate of a duly elected senator to render judgment in an impeachment trial?
Another issue is whether a senator-judge who has not attended the proceedings in person forfeits the right to deliberate the articles of impeachment and judge the guilt of the impeachable officer brought before the court. I do not see any provision to this effect in the 1987 Constitution or even the Senate resolution concerning the rules of procedure in impeachment trials.
Is a senator-judge remotely monitoring the proceedings necessarily less conscientious and diligent than one who is visibly not engaged though physically present in the trial — i.e., sleeping or distracted during the litigation? Sure, there is no basis to firmly establish that a senator-judge physically absent during the proceedings is in fact conscientiously and diligently monitoring the trial. Either way, there is no guarantee of diligence and rigor resting simply on the basis of attendance.
The Constitution, for that matter, permits a senator-judge to render judgment without irrefutable proof of diligence, rigor, wisdom and probity on their part.
In an age of advanced technology where the trial is broadcast live using various media, should physical presence be a necessary and resolute qualification for rendering judgment? I do not see this in the Senate resolution concerning the rules of procedure in impeachment trials.
Should there be a rule crafted to this effect, does it not hypothetically deprive the Filipino people of being represented by their duly elected senator in the proceedings? Is the Senate authorized by the Constitution to impose rules meant to effectively bar a duly elected representative of the Filipino people from performing their constitutional duty in the impeachment trial? Is the Senate hypothetically more powerful than the Constitution?
I have heard a Bendalo former magistrate speak of persons temporarily deprived of liberty while facing criminal charges as simultaneously losing (temporarily) their status as a member of the Senate, and therefore the ability to vote on the articles of impeachment. Thus, Mr. Bendalo Former Magistrate insists that senators in such a predicament be excluded from the determination of the two-thirds threshold for the conviction of an impeachable officer on trial before the Senate as impeachment court.
Assuming Mr. Bendalo Former Magistrate is correct, what happens when such a senator-judge is acquitted, or if their case is subsequently dismissed by the pertinent courts? Have the affected senator-judges completely forfeited their right to vote in the impeachment trial because of their previous and temporary unavailability? Have the Filipino people been essentially and unjustly deprived of representation by their duly elected senator in the proceedings? Will there be a mechanism to rectify the injustice, not just for the senator-judge to register their verdict, but for the impeachable officer whose fate may be potentially affected by a would-be restitution of the senator-judge’s power to vote for conviction or acquittal?
Is this a “snooze you lose” brand of justice being advocated by Mr. Bendalo Former Magistrate? Is it possible to deny restitution of the senator-judge’s privilege to render judgment in an impeachment case, and if applicable, to the fate of the impeachable officer if such judgment hypothetically overturns the initial ruling in the case?
It seems that the Bendalo coalition has found a clever way to unjustly manipulate the impeachment proceedings, circumvent the intent of the Constitution and potentially disenfranchise the Filipino people.
What despicable machinations by the Bendalo coalition! We might as well be a Bendalo Republic.
When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”
The first of these fantastic interpretations that I have heard is that a senator who has not been administered an oath or affirmation (in the same manner as their colleagues) is barred from ultimately voting for conviction or acquittal in the impeachment trial. Members of the Bendalo coalition insist that a senator who has not taken the oath shall not even be counted as a senator-judge in the impeachment trial.
For the Bendalo coalition, a mere oath — the Constitution does not even specify what kind of affirmation is required or how such an oath shall be administered — differentiates a senator from a senator-judge in an impeachment trial. The original Senate resolution concerning the rules of procedure for impeachment trials does not say that any senator who fails to take an oath administered by the impeachment court’s presiding officer shall be barred from voting for conviction or acquittal in the impeachment trial, if such is even constitutional.
I never imagined that a mere ceremonial oath could possibly serve as a creative way to disenfranchise millions of Filipino voters through their duly elected representation from performing a vital task assigned to them by the Constitution. A vague ceremonial act serving to stop the performance of an official function is akin to blocking students from graduating just because they failed to attend the graduation rites. What complete and utter nonsense!
It is a mere ceremonial act! It cannot possibly guarantee that a senator will be an upright judge in the trial or conversely, automatically render the senator-judge unfit to serve as impeachment magistrate. How can a vague ceremonial act be imbued with very mystical powers like that? Again, what complete and utter nonsense!
Of course, taking an oath is better than not doing it, but how can an interpretation of a Senate resolution endow a mere ceremony the power to upend the constitutional mandate of a duly elected senator to render judgment in an impeachment trial?
Another issue is whether a senator-judge who has not attended the proceedings in person forfeits the right to deliberate the articles of impeachment and judge the guilt of the impeachable officer brought before the court. I do not see any provision to this effect in the 1987 Constitution or even the Senate resolution concerning the rules of procedure in impeachment trials.
Is a senator-judge remotely monitoring the proceedings necessarily less conscientious and diligent than one who is visibly not engaged though physically present in the trial — i.e., sleeping or distracted during the litigation? Sure, there is no basis to firmly establish that a senator-judge physically absent during the proceedings is in fact conscientiously and diligently monitoring the trial. Either way, there is no guarantee of diligence and rigor resting simply on the basis of attendance.
The Constitution, for that matter, permits a senator-judge to render judgment without irrefutable proof of diligence, rigor, wisdom and probity on their part.
In an age of advanced technology where the trial is broadcast live using various media, should physical presence be a necessary and resolute qualification for rendering judgment? I do not see this in the Senate resolution concerning the rules of procedure in impeachment trials.
Should there be a rule crafted to this effect, does it not hypothetically deprive the Filipino people of being represented by their duly elected senator in the proceedings? Is the Senate authorized by the Constitution to impose rules meant to effectively bar a duly elected representative of the Filipino people from performing their constitutional duty in the impeachment trial? Is the Senate hypothetically more powerful than the Constitution?
I have heard a Bendalo former magistrate speak of persons temporarily deprived of liberty while facing criminal charges as simultaneously losing (temporarily) their status as a member of the Senate, and therefore the ability to vote on the articles of impeachment. Thus, Mr. Bendalo Former Magistrate insists that senators in such a predicament be excluded from the determination of the two-thirds threshold for the conviction of an impeachable officer on trial before the Senate as impeachment court.
Assuming Mr. Bendalo Former Magistrate is correct, what happens when such a senator-judge is acquitted, or if their case is subsequently dismissed by the pertinent courts? Have the affected senator-judges completely forfeited their right to vote in the impeachment trial because of their previous and temporary unavailability? Have the Filipino people been essentially and unjustly deprived of representation by their duly elected senator in the proceedings? Will there be a mechanism to rectify the injustice, not just for the senator-judge to register their verdict, but for the impeachable officer whose fate may be potentially affected by a would-be restitution of the senator-judge’s power to vote for conviction or acquittal?
Is this a “snooze you lose” brand of justice being advocated by Mr. Bendalo Former Magistrate? Is it possible to deny restitution of the senator-judge’s privilege to render judgment in an impeachment case, and if applicable, to the fate of the impeachable officer if such judgment hypothetically overturns the initial ruling in the case?
It seems that the Bendalo coalition has found a clever way to unjustly manipulate the impeachment proceedings, circumvent the intent of the Constitution and potentially disenfranchise the Filipino people.
What despicable machinations by the Bendalo coalition! We might as well be a Bendalo Republic.