A leadership call?
The postponement of the impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte has sent mixed signals to the two opposing blocs in the Senate and the House of Representatives—those favoring Duterte’s formal dismissal as the second-highest official in the country and those who are on her side.
Newly elected Rep. Leila de Lima (Akbayan party list), who languished in jail for more than seven years on trumped-up drug trade-related charges, is among those who expressed serious concerns about the postponement of Sara’s impeachment trial.
Senate President Chiz Escudero made the announcement, justifying that instead of June 2, the impeachment trial will start on June 11, or around eight days after both legislative houses start the next regular session. De Lima expressed that several things could happen within eight days, probably hinting that many deals might be made within that short span of time to finally rule out the impeachment trial.
Escudero rationalized that there are pending priority bills that need to be deliberated on, instead of spending substantial legislative time to focus on VP Sara’s impeachment. Duterte allies in the Senate, including incumbent Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, have also expressed the “legislation is our main mandate as the Senate” line.
To recall, at least 215 members of the lower House signed the impeachment complaint, elevating the case to the Senate, whose members will act as the impeachment court. The complaint is based on several charges, including malversation of P612.5 million in confidential funds, bribery, and corruption within the Department of Education, unexplained wealth, and failure to disclose assets. On top of these is the serious allegation of a conspiracy to assassinate President Marcos, First Lady Liza Marcos, and Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez.
House Deputy Majority Leader Rep. Paolo Ortega agreed with De Lima, saying that it is the Senate’s “leadership call.” While Ortega is not raising an issue with Escudero’s “leadership call” to his fellow senators, he decries that such a decision is ”like being stood up on a date.”
I don’t agree with Ortega’s metaphor. The decision to postpone the VP’s impeachment trial is more serious than being stood up on a date. It raises the possibility of horse-trading that the current batch of senators could resort to, given that rent-seeking political transactions have been normalized in this country.
Such a type of political maneuvering might lead to scuttling the impeachment trial process itself. But more than that is the possibility that the postponement might lead to skipping it altogether, thus exonerating the VP of serious impeachment charges.
For his part, President Marcos has been silent on the possibility of Sara’s impeachment trial, expressing that he is disinterested in this. So far, he has abstained from making explicit pronouncements on this issue.
It is perhaps Mr. Marcos’ expressed disinterest in the VP’s impeachment that Escudero decided to postpone the impeachment trial to June 11, instead of starting it yesterday, June 2.
Escudero’s rise to the Senate presidency has shown that he can adroitly shift allegiance and play the sycophant to any sitting president, whatever the president’s political colors may be. It could be that Escudero’s decision to postpone the impeachment is one way of assenting to the wishes of Mr. Marcos, showing his sycophantic bent.
Meanwhile, in a most recent press briefing, the President stressed that Sara’s impeachment trial will not affect the country’s economy. Beaming with confidence, Mr. Marcos said the impeachment trial of VP Sara would not have any effect on the economy, saying that the government “remains steadfast in its investment plans, strategies, and structural changes.”
But how “steadfast” is the government on making meaningful “structural changes” beyond what happened last week, when he urged all Cabinet members to file their courtesy resignations?
The order for Cabinet-level officials to tender their courtesy resignations also revealed that not all resignations were accepted. Mr. Marcos retained his closest allies, like the six members of his economic team, which includes Department of Economy, Planning, and Development, formerly National Economic and Development Authority Secretary Arsenio Balisacan, and Department of Budget and Management honcho Secretary Amenah Pangandaman.
Just wondering what Mr. Marcos’ basis was for accepting some resignations and declining those of his favorite people in the Cabinet. Is this his type of leadership call, or an adroit way of exacting some bargains that will lead to his desired “structural changes” that could include changing the 1987 Constitution?
