What did Miriam say?

By Teddy Locsin Jr. / Free Fire

BUT what did Miriam really say? She said: That the Senate received an impeachment complaint but was hit by a thunderbolt, just two months to the day.

That the Senate got eight articles of impeachment in a complaint of the highest gravity, that challenged the separation of powers but under the compulsion of higher duty to remove an official for offenses, about which all 188 members of the House knew of their personal knowledge, threatened the life of liberty and the country. Eight. No less.

That the prosecution and the defense submitted their compliance with the Senate demand to list documents and the witnesses authenticating them or testify of their own personal knowledge on each and every article of the complaint.

That, she, Senator Santiago, had studied all eight articles ahead of the evidence presented to judge their pertinence or impertinence whether they were legal evidence or not. That the defense had also prepared and labored to refute the allegations in all eight articles of impeachment, out of deference to the solemn duty of the House.

Then out of the blue, a direction from which she never expected anything, came a thunderbolt out of the sky, announcing the prosecution were withdrawing five and a half articles of impeachment out of the eight; leaving two and a half for a conviction. Not for the Senate’s consideration but for its conviction, presumptuous at that. How do you convict on half of an article? How do you punish for half an offense? For half of the remaining term of the Chief Justice? But which half, the first or the last?

That the prosecution bragged they had proved beyond reasonable doubt two and a half offenses; and that was more than enough. Ang yayabang n’yo, Miriam is said to have said, though the transcript does not say that.

That Corona’s refusal to offer in evidence what the law allows him to keep back is an admission of his guilt, said the prosecution; despite the evidentiary lack. But the prosecution’s own refusal to present any evidence on five and half out of eight was not an admission of suppressing evidence the prosecution actually lacked. And that conviction was a foregone conclusion even if the defense had not yet come back.

Who was the prosecution addressing? Miriam demanded in a rage, a court of law and justice or just the court of public opinion? Is the prosecution conducting a trial by publicity or a trial according to law? Public opinion will not decide this case, only the Senate will do it under the Constitution of a representative government. Anong kagaguhan ba ’yan?

I did not see it in the transcript, but she is said to have said, Ang yayabang n’yo. Mga gago naman.

Indeed only gagos will put a judge on the spot by suggesting that any verdict but guilty is wrong.

She concluded: kagaguhan is ground for contempt. Now that is pure law. The complaint was a sham and a violation of the lawyer’s oath to do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any falsehood in court.