FOLLOWING the resolution of the disgusting and partisan Senate impasse, a ticklish, if not thorny, issue of who will preside over the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte threatens to create another schism in the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.
Under the Constitution, when the president is impeached and tried for an impeachable offense, it is the chief justice of the Supreme Court who presides over the legal and political process of removing the former. The Constitution is silent, however, as to who will preside over the impeachment trial when the vice president and other impeachable officers are charged.
By implication, since the Senate president heads the Senate, and the latter sits as an impeachment court, it is logical that he presides over the trial of all other impeachable officers.
Prior to the amendment of the Senate rules, the Senate president was designated as the presiding senator-judge, and in previous impeachment trials of other impeachable officers, the Senate president presided over them. The new amendment, however, authorized a majority vote of the senators to choose among themselves outside of the sitting Senate president, who will steer the impeachment trial.
Voices from the majority group that installed the current Senate president have been heard to be considering another senator, who is a lawyer, to preside over the impeachment trial, in lieu of Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian.
Those batting for a senator with a legal background to head the proceeding to divest Vice President Duterte of her position argue that the trial involves procedures requiring expertise in law and legal technicalities so that only a lawyer would have the wherewithal to manage an orderly hearing. Not necessarily. While the Senate impeachment trial is governed by the Rules of Procedure and Practice, which outline a highly structured judicial process, it is, however, both a judicial and political process; hence, it need not follow the rigid and inflexible rules of procedure observed in court trials. What is required is impartiality and objectivity, with the underlying goal of finding the truth on the guilt or innocence of the impeached official.
In criminal cases, the quantum of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required for a conviction. In an impeachment trial, even if the evidence of guilt reaches the threshold of the required proof of conviction, the senator-judges, since it’s also a political process, can render a verdict of acquittal if the 2/3 votes of all 24 senators is not reached. The reverse is true; even if the evidence is overwhelming for a conviction, the senator-judges can vote to acquit.
Getting down to brass tacks, the impeachment trial is a numbers game. The senator-judges’ vote will not depend so much on their appreciation of the evidence before them or a reflection of a principled mind but rather on how the vote cast will affect their political future. That’s the irreversible reality. There may be a few of them who will not be swayed by outside influence or external pressure and will vote based on moral compass and unyielding principle.
A nonlawyer presiding over a judicial and political process will not affect the credible flow of the trial.
A short crash course on the impeachment procedure can prepare a non-legal mind to be an effective presiding officer.
A review by him of previous impeachment trials will do a lot for his education of the procedure.
He can also rely on practicing lawyers hired by the office of the Senate president as legal consultants to give him special lessons on the admissibility of evidence and how to rule on the objection of lawyers of both sides during the presentation of witnesses and documentary evidence as to their admissibility, relevance or competence.
Judging by the demeanor of the current Senate president, as well as his participation in the deliberations in the committee hearings, as well as in the Senate sessions, plus his responses to his interviews by various media outlets, he comes out as an educated, intelligent individual and a fast learner with common sense. He also projects to be independent and possessing of an unprejudiced mind, and has not been tainted with accusations of corruption or bias, unlike his other colleagues.
It is interesting to note that Senate President Gatchalian has three siblings in government service, all of them US-educated, namely Social Welfare Secretary Rex Gatchalian, Valenzuela City Mayor Wesley Gatchalian and Valenzuela City 1st District Rep. Kenneth Gatchalian, who are known to be dedicated and humble public servants, a tribute to the good upbringing given them by their proud parents, wealthy business magnates William Gatchalian and Dee Hua Ting-Gatchalian.
The Constitution does not require the Senate president to be a lawyer if he presides over the impeachment trial of the vice president and other impeachable officers.
Moreover, the majority of the senators elected him as the Senate president, which is a recognition of his capability to preside over Senate sessions, as well as presiding over an impeachment trial, the same being part of his duties as Senate president.
Presiding in the impeachment trial is historic, an honor accorded him. No Senate president should be deprived of that historic role and laurel appendage to his name.
The reputation of the Senate has been badly bruised by their recent juvenile and irresponsible bickering that resulted in the destructive and unproductive gridlock. It has to redeem itself and focus on the legislative work urgently needing attention and endeavor to make the impeachment trial judicious and marked with fairness.
The senator-judges should be acutely aware that the impeachment trial of Vice President Duterte has the dangerous potential of exacerbating the schism among the various political forces and the inflamed passion that go with it that could plunge this country into uncharted catastrophic course should the proceeding be tarnished by unfairness and constitutional infirmities.
