Prosecution’s curveball and coup de grâce
In our basketball-crazy nation, we hardly speak of curveballs that are used in sports lingo. A curveball is served by a pitcher in a way that causes the ball to spin and veer off a straight path. The batter then finds it hard to hit the ball. As a figure of speech, a curveball refers to a sudden and unexpected course of things that could throw a protagonist off guard.
The word lit up in my mind when, during Day 39 of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, the prosecution team’s head, Rep. Gerville Luistro, announced that the prosecution was withdrawing three articles already presented and supported by witnesses and documents. All that was left then was Article 2, the one presented in the past two days of the hearings. This was on the VP’s unexplained wealth said to be close to a billion pesos but not included in her statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth. The three others—about grave threats, bribery, and confidential funds—were being withdrawn. But why? Many asked. It was a confounding moment.
Jaws dropped to the floor, eyebrows rose to the ceiling, hairs stood on end. For those of us whose main tools—weapons, if you will—are words, it was a mind-blowing, discombobulating manifestation by the prosecution that caused so many metaphors and figures of speech to come alive. At least in my own head. It was a coup de grâce. A denouement. The rug was pulled from under the defense team’s feet, they who now find themselves between the devil and the deep blue sea, between a rock and a hard place, between Scylla and Charybdis.
The French words coup de grâce mean “a stroke of grace” or “blow of mercy” but a death blow, in fact. To make light of it in a flippant way, Elvis has left the building with the soundtrack, “Am all shook up, a-huh-huh.”
Ye Tagalog speakers, find your own metaphors in Filipino. What about the onomatopoeic, nagkawindang-windang? Ilonggos describe the sudden clatter of pots and pans during an earthshaking cataclysm as nagarinongkadol. I am stretching this a bit, flummoxed as I am like so many others.
But to borrow a saying, there is a method to this madness, except that madness it is not for the prosecution. But it was something the defense denounced as unfair. To them, withdrawing the three articles would deprive them of presenting their own evidence and witnesses—if they have any—to prove the VP innocent and deserving of acquittal. But the prosecution insists they, in fact, did the defense a favor. Nope, the defense thinks they were denied their day in court.
Opinions—legal and commonsensical—have been flying thick on mainstream and social media. So-called experts, influencers, analysts, spoofers, punsters, opinionists, and vloggers of all shades and stripes are coming out of the woodwork and have weighed in.
An argument goes that it could have been simpler had the defense agreed to a motion during the opening of the impeachment hearings that after the prosecution has presented witnesses and evidence on one article, the defense would present theirs. The defense would have none of it, so they are now left holding their own bag that they can no longer present in toto at the hearing. That is, if Senator-judge and presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero does not receive motions for reconsideration filed by senator-judges. But will they, or won’t they?
Questions are confounding. Why was Escudero so instantly prepared with his ruling, expounding on it lengthily as if he had known about what was coming? Did he suddenly experience an epiphany? Was he gifted with sharp intuition, prescience, or foreknowledge? Will the prosecution’s gambit—their legal maneuver, if you will—work? Or are they on a slippery slope of their own making?
At a press briefing, prosecution lawyer Lorna Kapunan said in crisp Filipino (paraphrased here): “Only now have I seen that after three of the four articles were withdrawn, the defense would complain, with the defense acting as if they are aggrieved … They should be happy. I doubt if they have consulted the VP … I do not know why sad sila. It is the people who are victims here. This is not a criminal case, this is about accountability. We are not here to put somebody in jail but to preserve the Constitution. No drama or theatrics by a VP should erase the fact that she is also covered by the Constitution.”
Of course, criminal culpability is another story. The courts, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the antigraft court Sandiganbayan will have their day in the sun. In fact, the VP is on bail for charges of grave threats (Article 1, the opening salvo at the impeachment court) in a regional trial court.
The impeachment hearings resume on Nov. 9. We will continue to watch the scales of justice move. Why acquit the VP if the evidence is so strong? Why convict her if she is innocent? For those who have closely followed the trial, it should not be merely political. It has been about good and evil. Something sacred and profound was at play.
—————-
Send feedback to [email protected]
