Evidence? What evidence?

AMADO P. MACASAET

‘Will the impeachment court allow the liar to walk although it knows the truth?’

THE defense in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona is pounding heavy on evidence which it does not want the court to accept because they say was illegally obtained.

That is a good argument if the impeachment were an ordinary trial. Since it is not, the harsh reality is being a political process evidence has less weight than the influence of the President of the Republic and the political leanings and fortunes of the senator judges.

The defense can argue to kingdom come the lack of evidence to convict the Chief Justice.

At the end of the day, as they have long known, they know that the acquittal or conviction of a respondent in an impeachment trial is hardly based on evidence. Political sentiments and the influence of the President on the senator judges will rule the decision-making process.

We all remember the case of President Joseph Estrada. His trial was already well on the way.

Unlike Chief Justice Corona, Estrada left everything to his lawyers led byEstelito Mendoza. He chose to be quiet about his innocence and made it appear that the senator judges knew enough of the truth to set him free.

The truth in this case was the fact that the respondent had a head count of senator judges who will vote for his acquittal.

His accusers, principally led by then Vice President Gloria Arroyo, were working quietly with the help of Cardinal Jaime Sin to secure his conviction but there was no way of doing it precisely because Estrada had the numbers in the Senate to acquit him.

That is the very reason the infamous EDSA II was organized. Gloria Arroyo accused President Estrada of massive corruption without as much as submitting proof beyond the testimony of Luis Chavit Singson that, true enough, the leader was involved in jueteng.

Singson and his witnesses even had ledgers to prove their accusations.

There was enough "evidence" to convict Estrada. But the accusers themselves knew that the impeachment court would acquit him. That is the only reason Gloria Arroyo and Cardinal Sin eventually helped by former President Cory Aquino, had to mobilize the rich and powerful to seek the ouster of the sitting pPresident in what was later described as EDSA II but was in time disowned by the participants. They regretted supporting it.

Before she died, President Corazon Aquino atoned for her "sin" of supporting Gloria Arroyo by saying she regretted it.

The darkest chapter in the judiciary came to pass when Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., presiding over the impeachment trial allowed the court to be brought to the streets.

Estrada was not convicted. He was ousted by the Supreme Court on the doctrine "vox populi, vox Dei (the voice of the people is the voice of God).

What is the voice of the people in the impeachment of Chief Justice Corona? There is none if one is waiting to hear it from a massive protest. But the voice of the people is louder than the crowd of the rich that pushed Estrada out of office.

Two surveys done by the Social Weather Stations revealed that the Chief Justice has been rejected by the people. His rating is below zero, minus 15 percent.

This is the most solid evidence that should serve as the guide of the senator judges in rendering a verdict on the guilt or innocence of Chief Justice Renato Corona.

Will the senator judges allow an impeachable officer like the Head Magistrate to walk although the people have rejected him as shown by his minus 15 percent acceptance rating?

If they do, they would have thrown out the doctrine vox populi, vox Dei, wrongly applied on Joseph Estrada.

There is a great debate over whether or not the peso and dollar deposits of the Chief Justice in two banks may be accepted as evidence by the impeachment court.

The defense objects on the ground that said evidence was illegally obtained. The Constitution and the laws, they argue, do not allow acceptance.

The question here that does not exactly sit with law is the fact that the deposits exist. The deposits are evidence of "guilt" because they are not listed in the statement of assets, liabilities and net worth of the Chief Justice.

The defense earlier said the deposits will be explained at the proper time. Instead of explaining they are now asking the impeachment court not to accept said deposits as evidence of wrongdoing. Not explaining is admission of wrongdoing,. But their argument is based on law.

In this case, we might say the defense is not seeking the truth. The lawyers of the Chief Justice are hiding it although everybody knows about it.

Here we might remember what Fulton Sheen once said "The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie even if everybody believes it."

In the impeachment case, the truth has been established. Everybody believes it. The lies have also been proven. Nobody doubts them. Will the impeachment court allow the liar to walk although it knows the truth?