A very strange impeachment (1)
In a nutshell, I believe the Senate has become full of itself—bedazzled by its velvety robes and deluded into thinking, acting, and wanting to be judges. This departs more and more from what an impeachment should be. Part of the problem is that everyone compensates for the shortcomings of the Senate president. The quick fix to his weakness has been to tie the institution into knots, turning it even more into what it shouldn’t be: a court of law.
In any institution, two things matter: the rules and tradition. Tradition provides precedent—a guide to problem-solving already done for us. Following it builds an institutional, not personalistic, approach. We are temporary; the institution is forever. There is much talk of the Senate president’s humility, but I recall Saint Teresa’s attributed saying: For a bishop, wisdom is preferable to sanctity.
It is half-humility to retain the Senate presidency but surrender the gavel to a wily colleague. If you truly feel inadequate, don’t take the job and saddle your colleagues with ad hoc solutions. This weakness strengthens the very behavior that has helped get our country into its mess: it empowers those who play a corrupt or corrupting game. You want a wily presiding officer only if you welcome a wily game.
Criticism of the Senate president’s abdication is met with the claim that the Senate can make its own rules in impeachment. True, but that ends the legal debate without addressing the political repercussions. Why create rules encouraging rigid dependence on court procedures? That does not serve justice; it serves a specific type of legal practitioner.
Impeachment is fundamentally a political process, though created by the Constitution. It is not either/or, but a question of which aspect should be preferred and which should be kept subordinate. It settles a fundamental political question—continued fitness for office—determined by co-equals. It is not meant to be a lynching or a kangaroo court.
Basic rules of fair play and orderly proceedings are needed. Much can be borrowed from courts, but the rules are changeable if impractical. This past week, invoking court rules dulled and arguably derailed the proceedings.
Legislatures use parliamentary procedures—like Robert’s Rules of Order—to ensure order, prevent mob rule, protect minorities, and keep things moving. Rules adapt to what works. Sen. Bam Aquino appealed to this, rightly. The fury toward Sen. Risa Hontiveros for returning to core impeachment questions exposed the dangers of overlawyering. In court, procedural points can overcome substantive defects, but impeachment’s purpose is to reach the core problem and decide.
We learn through trial and error; culture is our operating manual. Richard Dawkins coined “meme” for cultural equivalents of genes—transmissible ideas that replicate.
When borrowing institutions, we inherit their organic evolution and core ideas. Impeachment, at its core, is a trial by a jury of peers—equals. This addresses political fitness, not legal guilt. Benjamin Franklin noted that before impeachment, the remedy for tyrannical leaders was murder (Caesar to Charles I). Impeachment improved on vendetta tools like the Star Chambers or the Inquisition. It demands basic fair play, not judicial precision.
—————-
Email: mlquezon3@gmail.com; Twitter: @mlq3
