Above all, the evidence

Many of us reached for our cell phones to compute what two-thirds of 20 was while watching Day 29 last Wednesday of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. (Two-thirds is a tricky 66.666 percent.) Four senators were absent: Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa is in hiding while eluding arrest by the International Criminal Court, Loren Legarda is on leave and abroad for medical reasons, Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta are in detention and facing plunder charges.

Twenty eligible and “legally and factually capable of participating” senators, divided by three then multiplied by two, equals 13.333 to convict. As there cannot be a .333 senator, presiding officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero set the number for conviction at 14, which is, in fact, more than two-thirds. Nobody objected. If set at 13, to which .333 is nearer, it would be less than two-thirds, he said.

How many .3333 angels can dance on the head of a pin?

If we go by what the senator-judges had decided (13-1-6), 13 or 14 would be the threshold number. Escudero voted “nay” while six did not vote. Thirteen voted “aye” to Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo’s motion to set the threshold once and for all.

Looking at the numbers and reading social media posts, it was obvious to me that many had already predicted who will vote to convict and who will vote to acquit even before the impeachment court had heard all the evidence from both the prosecution and the defense. Else why the eagerness about reaching the threshold number and the .3333?

Even before the trial ends, senator-judges so and so are predicted to vote this way and senator-judges so and so are predicted to vote that way. The evidence and witnesses’ accounts be damned. If that is how it will be, what a waste of time and people’s money.

But there is hope. Many people are watching the impeachment trial live or their replays. Although they cannot vote to convict or acquit the VP, many have watched the evidence that has been presented and have listened to the witnesses being cross-examined. My dire warning: Filipinos will judge the senator-judges on how they will vote in the end. They cannot ignore the evidence or the lack of it.

I liked what I heard from Akbayan party list Rep. Jose “Chel” Diokno of the prosecution who addressed the tribunal before the Day 29 hearing began and was awaiting “the new controlling ruling” from the presiding officer:

“The prosecution is confident in its case. We believe in our evidence. We trust the independent judgment of this honorable court. Whatever the threshold is, however this court decides the issue before it today, the prosecution will do its job. Malinaw po ang obligasyon ng prosecution: ilatag ang ebidensya at patunayan ang mga paratang para makamit ang hustisya at pananagutan. Malinaw rin po ang tungkulin ng hukumang ito: suriin ang mga ebidensiya at timbangin ang mga argumento at magpasya ayon sa Konstitusyon at sa ating batas …” He then recalled the opinions of the amici curiae last week on the threshold number, stressing that it was now for the court to decide.

“Accountability constitution” was how Diokno described the 1987 Constitution, where it so emphasized that “public office is a public trust.” He reminded us that these words are not accidental. Accountability has two sides, he said: answerability—humarap at sumagot. And responsibility because “power carries with it accountability.”

To keep hammering that an impeachment trial is political simply because it seeks to remove a high official and prevent him/her from holding public office again but even without much evidence of wrongdoing makes impeachment look like it is simply vindictiveness or persecution. But what if the official continuously leaves a trail of jaw-dropping unexplained expenses, wealth, and criminal misdeeds? Should senator-judges in the impeachment trial look the other way because of their political affiliations? These are some questions citizens are asking. It cannot simply be all political.

How the senator-judges will assess the evidence and the witnesses so far presented and cross-examined by both the prosecution and defense counsels, how they will vote in the end—to acquit or convict—is what the people, though unelected but also judges on their own, are awaiting. In October perhaps?