IMPEACHMENT WITHOUT ILLUSIONS

by Randy David

We need to file a new impeachment complaint against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo because it is the only constitutional procedure left to us if we wish to put a closure, once and for all, to the political crisis that has been spawned by the fraudulent 2004 presidential election. In its ruling on Proc. 1017, the Supreme Court said we cannot implead the President. How then do we make a president accountable? The answer is by impeachment.

To impeach Mrs. Arroyo, is to protect the constitutional order. It is to defend what remains of our democratic institutions from the relentless assault to which they have been subjected by a reckless politician and her civilian and military allies. There is no guarantee, of course, that we will succeed in removing Mrs. Arroyo from the office she has usurped. But that is only one goal of impeachment The other goal is to actively engage our people in the political resolution of the crisis, preparatory to the long term rehabilitation of our society. In this sense, impeachment is not the end, but only the beginning.

A full year has quickly passed since Presidential Spokesman Ignacio Bunye, in a frantic effort to cover up the crime of his boss, first publicly announced the existence of the so-called Hello Garci Tapes. These tapes, as we now know, contained 152 highly incriminating conversations between former Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano and various individuals including Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo herself and her husband Mike Arroyo. Countless media reports, notably those printed by Newsbreak magazine, have pointed a finger at a unit of the ISAFP, the intelligence arm of the armed forces, as the source of these tapes. Yet, until now, no agency of government has been able to tell the public who exactly performed the wiretap, on whose orders, how, and for what purpose. Strictly from a security perspective, perhaps nothing can be as alarming as the wiretapping of the President.

What we know is this: Hardly anyone today disputes the fact that the familiar voice in those tapes belongs to Mrs. Arroyo. Secretary Bunye said so himself, even as he claimed that in the "original" tape the person Gloria was talking to was not Garcillano, but a man named Gary Ruado, a staff member of Rep. Iggy Arroyo, Mrs. Arroyo's brother-in-law. A few days later, unable to provide a believable account of where he got the tapes, and why he knew which recording was original and which one was tampered, Bunye dropped out of circulation. He later retracted his story.

Bowing to public pressure three weeks after the existence of the tapes became known, it was Mrs. Arroyo's turn, on June 27th, to address the issue on national television. Reading from a carefully-crafted speech, she said that she owed it to the nation to set the record straight on the Hello Garci tapes. She admitted having called a Comelec official during the canvassing period. She called it a lapse In judgment for which she wished to apologize. In English, and then in Filipino, she said she was sorry. From there, she urged the nation to move on.

In subsequent interviews, she deftly avoided answering any further questions about the tapes. Each time the issue was brought up, she gave a stock answer: the question of the tapes should be raised in the proper forum at the right time. She was entitled, she said, to the rights of an accused. Clearly, she was bracing herself for an impeachment. She begged the public not to prejudge her. In one interview, she said she should be allowed to have "her day in court."

I do not believe that she ever meant to answer the charges against her in a proper impeachment proceeding. From the start, she was bent on using every legal technicality available in order to avoid moral and criminal culpability.

Many of us then, who had already poured out into the streets, thought that this shrewd politician would do everything to forestall the explosion of public outrage. Given the critical nature of the circumstances at that time, we knew that the shift to the impeachment mode would slow down the gathering storm and give her time to consolidate her defense. But, having just emerged from the turbulence of 2001, the public wanted to give the constitutional processes a chance to work. This we could not ignore.

Impeachment was a decent option that was cynically manipulated by an indecent presidency. Mrs. Arroyo was not at all interested in having her day in court. She was instead hell-bent on rigging the whole process. With the connivance of legal mercenaries masquerading as luminaries, she and her allies in the House successfully killed the complaint before it could even reach first base. She personally phoned every single congressman she thought would listen to her. She talked to their spouses, to their siblings, and to their patrons. It wasn't their sense of justice that she was appealing to, but rather their opportunism that is latent in every person. She knew, more than any other politician of this generation, that everyone has a need, a weakness, and a price. And she was prepared to pay the asking price.

One doesn't need to be a moral philosopher to know that such behavior is foul and reprehensible. But from a legal standpoint, the question is what law is being violated? How does one tell a bribe from a pork barrel release?

Theoretically, all laws have moral origins. But in the hands of an amoral practitioner, the law is nothing more than a guide to calculation, Perhaps this is modernity's principal weakness–having rendered moral values increasingly irrelevant, it encourages crimes of calculation. This is especially evident in societies undergoing the painful transition from tradition to modernity. Here, the rules are no longer fastened to any moral foundation. The old values that gave to everyday behavior the imprint of an ethical instinct have been eroded. What should have taken their place–the rule of law and its accompanying institutions–have not fully taken root. Clearly, the old is dying, but the new hasn't been born. This is where we are.

When one reviews the events that have transpired since the crude murder of the first impeachment, one cannot avoid feeling suffocated in a self-sustaining miasma of moral brazenness and repression. Consider the following: A Senate committee, headed by Sen. Magsaysay, that is investigating the possible diversion of public funds intended for agricultural inputs to Mrs. Arroyo's electoral campaign suddenly finds its quest rudely blocked at every point. A crucial witness, Jocjoc Bolante, a former undersecretary in the Dept. of Agriculture and a known underling of Mike Arroyo, cannot be located. This man freely goes in and out of the country, yet no police officer nor any NBI agent has been able to identify and bring him to the Senate.

Another Senate committee, headed by Sen. Blazon, has been investigating the role played by key officials of the Armed Forces and the PNP in the manipulation of the 2004 elections. Two Marine officers, Gen. Gudani and Col. Balutan, dutifully appeared before the Senate to answer questions. Both were severely reprimanded by their superiors. They now face the possibility of a court-martial. On the same day they were summoned, Malacanang issued EO 464 requiring high officials of the government and of the armed services to first secure permission from the President before they could appear in any congressional hearing. This was quickly challenged by the senators no less before the Supreme Court, But it took a while before the high court would rule on the petition, and so the investigations could not proceed. Crucial portions of EO 464 were subsequently declared unconstitutional. The appearance of government officials other than president in congressional hearings in aid of legislation is mandatory, said the SC. If executive privilege is invoked, the reason must be explained. But the Palace has appealed the decision, and so the ban on such appearances in hearings in aid of legislation remains.

The popular movement in the streets has kept alive the spirit of protest despite the seeming indifference of many from the middle and upper classes. The weekly demonstrations, no matter how small, have made sure that the issues against Mrs. Arroyo would not be forgotten. To put an end to these noisy rallies, Mrs. Arroyo ordered her Executive Secretary, a former general himself, to adopt the so-called "calibrated preemptive response" in lieu of the existing policy of "maximum tolerance" in dealing with rallies without permits. A firestorm of legal challenges greeted CPR. Again, it took a while for the Supreme Court to act on the petitions. When it finally did, it categorically struck down GPR as invalid and declared it as having no place in our democratic firmament. Forced to fall back on the existing BP 880 governing public assemblies, the PNP has nonetheless continued to use repressive measures to confront demonstrators. When reminded of the high court's rejection of CPR, their cocky response is: So sue us! Such arrogance is enshrined in the perpetual smirk of Gen. Vidal Querol, the PNP commander of the National Capital Region.

Emboldened by the Supreme Court's seeming silence on the petitions against EO 464 and CPR, Mrs. Arroyo, on Feb. 24th, Mrs. Arroyo issued Proc. 1017, declaring a state of national emergency. Through General Order No. 5, she ordered the military and the police to suppress all lawless violence, acts of terrorism, and rebellion. On the authority of this proclamation, ail rallies were banned, warrantless arrests of critics were made, and government forces raided a newspaper office, claiming the right to issue standards to govern mass media, as well as to take over public utilities during the emergency. Malacanang claimed it had unearthed a conspiracy between leftwing militants and rightwing soldiers to overthrow Mrs. Arroyo's government. What this supposed conspiracy is all about, and who the plotters are, remains a mystery to this day. What we know is that it is the civilian critics who have borne the main blow of state repression since the issuance of 1017. In a deft maneuver that has now become familiar, Mrs. Arroyo lifts 1017 before the Supreme Court could rule on it, claiming that the emergency has passed. Instead of pronouncing the issue moot and academic, this time, the SC acted with dispatch. In sharp language, it reminded the President that civil liberties are so basic to a democracy that they cannot be set aside by a declaration of a state of emergency. In a separate concurring opinion, the Chief Justice minced no words. Replying to Justice Tinga's dissenting opinion, CJ Panganiban wrote: "Some of those who drafted PP1017 may be testing the outer limits of presidential prerogatives and the perseverance of this Court in safeguarding the people's constitutionally enshrined liberty. They are playing with fire, and unless prudently restrained, they may one day wittingly or unwittingly burn down the country. History will never forget, much less forgive, this Court if it allows such misadventure and refuses to strike down abuse at its inception. Worse, our people will surely condemn the misuse of legal hocus pocus to justify this trifling with constitutional sanctities."

To be continued tomorrow.......