Verdict on 2nd day: palpak
Television, they say, is a cruel medium because it highlights the physical defects of actors, the reason most entertainment programs on national TV employ mostly young and attractive performers. Actually, youth and allure are merely icing on the cake because TV audiences look for flair and talent from on cam players, whether it is singing, dancing, hosting and even news reporting.
Some actors possess hidden talents that need only to be tapped. Others who are not as gifted eventually rise to the challenge and become adept if they’re patient and diligent enough to learn the tools of the trade, by studying and practicing before the director shouts, “Lights, camera, action!”
How TV as mass medium relates to viewers crossed my mind while I watched the TV coverage of the second day of the Senate impeachment hearing against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona. He stands accused for culpable violation of the Constitution and graft and corruption.
As we know, Senate President and Presiding Judge Juan Ponce Enrile adjourned the hearing after House prosecutor Elpidio Barzaga told the court that with regards to the second article of impeachment, the prosecution panel will be presenting computer-generated documents from the Land Registration Authority. The documents will supposedly show that Corona amassed ill-gotten wealth. When asked whether Land Registration Authority officials will be presented as well to authenticate the important papers, Barzaga answered in the negative. Under the Rules of Court, unathenticated documents are not acceptable as evidence.
The interaction between Enrile and Barzaga took a comic turn when Barzaga proclaimed that computer-generated documents have become acceptable in day-to-day business. The presiding judge then asked what the House prosecution wanted to happen on Day 2. A postponement, Barzaga offered. I was about to shift to another channel when a friend who was also watching texted her verdict on the proceedings on TV: palpak.
Prior to the 2nd day of the impeachment trial, TV news channels launched programs that aimed to instruct the people about the nature of impeachment. We have heard it often said that impeachment is a political process sui generis or a class all its own. It partakes of a criminal trial even if a guilty verdict would simply remove and perpetually ban the erring official from public office.
Lawyer Victoria Avena of the University of the Philippines College of Law said impeachment is a direct action of the people. Although they do not sit in the halls of the Senate and wear the red robes of senator-judges, or actively do the work of the House prosecutors, the people do so through them whom they directly voted into office.
Avena explained these principles well and in plain language as people wondered what could be the effect of the five impeachment-related cases lodged by Corona’s lawyers before the Supreme Court. One such case asked the SC to issue a temporary restraining order against the impeachment process, a privilege vested by the Constitution exclusively to the legislative branch.
The TV coverage also alluded to the impeachment of then president Joseph Estrada in late 2000. To recall, the House prosecution walked out in January 2001 when a majority of the senator judges refused to open the second envelope reportedly containing documents that pointed to Erap’s bank deposits in Equitable Bank, purportedly fruits of illegal activities.
One senator-judge danced in delight, thinking Erap won the day, but as quickly as the House prosecutors disappeared from view, the social messaging services went on overdrive. People vented their anger on the streets, which quickly evolved into People Power 2. As we know, even if the impeachment court was unable to pronounce a verdict on Estrada, he was still ousted from office. Not only that, he was charged and convicted and later pardoned for the crime of plunder.
A news analyst said that people should manage their expectations of the House prosecutors because they’re up against a powerhouse of litigators defending Corona.
Well, if they’re not totally convinced of the cause to impeach Corona, or are lazy to do homework and perform their moral obligation, they should not be there in the first place. With all the resources at its disposal, including the assistance of close to 60 private prosecutors, was presenting unauthenticated documents and asking for postponement all that they could manage? House prosecutors should cover their faces in shame.
People know and understand the issues surrounding the midnight appointee in the Supreme Court. Now that he has been impeached, they want to see the process conducted in an open, fair, honest and orderly fashion. This can only happen if their representatives in Congress, who brought the charges upon Corona, are diligent and sincere, just as the senator-judges are expected to be guided by the spirit of the law and not merely by its literal interpretation.
Anything less than that would lead people to consider other means.
