Preview

When the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, reached its first moment of decision (that the two-thirds requirement for conviction in impeachment would be based on a membership of 20, the number currently able to attend the trial), what did the other court, the court of public opinion—the public—think about it? Bluntly speaking, there’s no avoiding the fact that it was perceived as a preview of the potential outcome of the trial.

The Senate, in deciding to overturn presiding officer Francis Escudero’s early ruling that the two-thirds majority needed to convict was 16, calculated the two-thirds requirement of the Constitution on the basis of 20 participating senators: 14 senators will have to vote guilty for the Vice President to be convicted (actually, 13 and a fraction, but as Escudero obviously enjoyed explaining, you cannot have a fraction of a senator so you have to round the number up to 14). When the votes on the motion were counted, 13 voted to overturn Escudero (Escudero, of course, voted to sustain his own ruling), while the six senators widely expected to vote to acquit the Vice President absented themselves from the proceedings, effectively an act to sustain Escudero.

The only surprise seemed to be Sen. Mark Villar, who not only voted with the majority but was actually present, unlike the minority with which he is usually associated. Some have read this as the Villars splitting their votes to stay in the good graces of both sides.

The court of public opinion can also deduce from the voting that the Senate, as a whole, is not interested in letting the trial end up without a conclusion. There won’t be, to borrow the term of former Supreme Court Justice Adolf Azcuna, a “mistrial.” Escudero, having saved face by voting for his own ruling, can now go along with the majority and there seems little chance for him to vote for acquittal on all counts.

The only room left for mischief is if the Villars were to reconsolidate their votes at the end of the proceedings. With both voting for acquittal, even if Escudero joined the majority expected to convict, they’d be one vote short of 14: unless, of course, one of two things happens: either Sen. Loren Legarda comes home and insists on being able to vote, or another ruling emerges, rounding down, instead of up, thus making a two-thirds majority 13 and not 14. Could the Senate do this? Might the Supreme Court do it?

It’s been suggested the Senate inoculated itself from being judged to have committed a grave abuse of discretion with its vote, by means of having invited retired members of the Supreme Court to weigh in before the vote was taken. The result of the voting conformed to the advice of the majority of the retired justices, after all; for the Supreme Court to repudiate the vote would be to repudiate three former chief justices. What would seem more likely would be for the Supreme Court to still find fault with the Senate—by its rounding up, instead of down.

But as lawyers have been pointing out, after the Supreme Court was asked to invalidate the Senate’s vote, it is premature to challenge the Senate’s decision since no actual vote on the charges has taken place. What we have, instead, is the creation of a legal consensus supported by a decision of the Senate; one that the defenders of the Vice President were unable to prevent.

See Also

Talk of the Town: A shorter life

Again, before the court of public opinion, there is the presentation and debunking of evidence and the marshaling of the prosecution versus the defense (the trial aspect of it), and the marshaling of allies on either side, the politics of it. A weak case makes for skeptical public opinion against the prosecution, a strong case makes for public opinion being able to shift even those inclined toward the defense, but who don’t want to risk antagonizing the public. For the mercenary on all sides, there are many ways of gauging which side is more inviting. A vote like the one the Senate held is one way.

Walkouts have shock value but the more they are used, the less effective they become; ultimately, in a showdown, to absent yourself is to surrender—unless you absent yourself to open hostilities in a new arena. Those inclined to support the Vice President, come what may, may find few arenas available. The military shows no signs of being adventurous, which means even if the police were so inclined, it would be folly to try; neither is the legal community inclined to reject impeachment outright; and the Duterte machine has proven itself incapable of summoning the faithful to the streets—it’s the other faithful who respond, and only if their faith leaders do the summoning.

Email: mlquezon3@gmail.com; Twitter: @mlq3