Did the president violated the Constitution when he invited Senator Revilla to Bahay Pangarap to convince him to vote in favor of impeaching Mr. Corona?
When the Senate convened itself as an Impeachment Court, the Senate immediately transformed itself into a court. Section 3, of Article 9 is specific especially no. 4 and 6--that the Senate transforms itself into a court because the impeachment is a "trial". Senators don suits like judges or in some quarters, as jurors, signifying that the entire chamber is now acting like a court.
The question is--is it illegal for a president to approach or even meet a judge particularly at a time when a serious judicial matter is being decided? The answer is not entirely no. There is what we call a separation of powers, and there is a principle called "judicial independence." The Chief Executive is expected to respect the judicial independence of a judge or a justice.
A president may meet a justice or a judge in a social function. That breakfast meeting, according to several Senators and even Revilla himself admitted, was a social meeting.
I modify my earlier take on this issue. During the trial of Mr. Corona, the senators actually assumed the duties and responsibilities as judges (jurors to some), thereupon, ruled not by politics, but by the Rules of Court.
President Aquino may still meet a justice or a judge in a social function. They may talk like ordinary citizens, yet, it is unethical for the president to pry into a case by which the justice is involved with, much more if the case has a significant political effect to the President.
That meeting is entirely not unconstitutional or violative of any law. What is probably illegal was when Budget secretary Butch Abad told Senator Revilla this---" magtulungan tayo" or "let's help each other."
This statement may actually be just an innocent remark, but if this was followed by an act correlative of the request asked, then, that might constitute bribery.
For this to stick, we have to see if that qualifies as a bribery offense. Did the president promised anything in return for Senator Bong Revilla's "yes" vote to impeach Corona? Bribery, according to our laws, has two component parts: a proposition to do an illicit act in favor of the bribe giver and a bribe. Absence of any of these parts renders an act not punishable.
Going back to that meeting--did the president or any of his functionaries who were present in that meeting induced Senator Revilla to do an act which violated the rules and regulations of the Senate which was, at that time, sitting as an impeachment court? Section 3 (a) of the RA 3019 is clear:
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.
Did Revilla violated any of the rules and regulations of the Senate at the time when it was an impeachment court? Did the Senate actually forbade any of its members to talk or discuss the case with anybody, even the President of the Philippines?
Was the voting an open or close thing? It was an open affair. The trial was public, therefore, anybody can actually talk about it. So, talking about the case is not illegal or unconstitutional.
Was Revilla induced to vote in favor of impeachment because he was persuaded by a thing offered to him or did Revilla voted because he was merely convinced of the arguments put forth by the President and his men?
The act of persuasion, inducement or influence must result to an act which is a direct violation of the rules and regulations by which these were entrusted to the officer being persuaded or induced. So, in this provision, even if there was no inducement but merely exerting influence over the officer makes that act, a violation of RA 3019.
Therefore, we revert to our earlier question---was Revilla induced by the President, or was Revilla influenced by the President to do an illegal act or an act that favored the president? This is not clear. Revilla was not forthwith in saying that he was influenced by the president. Besides, even if he was influenced, his public pronouncements shortly after the vote, run contrary to his later claim.
Besides, there is nothing in the President's statement or of Abad's that would suggest or even state matter-o-factly that they used their powers to influence Revilla's decision to vote in favor of impeachment. Abad's statement was not a threat, but a suggestion. A suggestion is not a persuasive statement, nor an inducement and definitely, not a statement that aims to influence.
Now, for this issue to really stick, Revilla has to make up his mind--did he or did he compromised his integrity as a judge shortly after that eventful meeting? If Revilla decides to admit, then, he automatically admitted being a party to a bribery case. Obviously, Revilla will not do it.
Bribery takes two to tango, because the law punishes the briber and the bribe taker. Revilla, of course, does not have the wherewithal to admit that he was influenced or induced to vote against Corona.
Okey, for this to be a very strong case of impeachment, Revilla has to even admit that there was an offer of anything shortly after the remark was made.
Revilla has to be very specific---he voted for impeachment because the president dangled 50 million pesos worth of projects before him. Will Revilla admit this publicly? This is something very serious, and which, I believe, will not happen.
So since, this admission will definitely not take place, Revilla's revelations are just mere intrigue, an attempt to paint a sinister landscape, just to deflect the real issue---the senator's dangerous liaisons with Janet Lim-Napoles, the pork barrel queen.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you very much for reading my blog. You inspired me. But if you intend to put your name "anonymous", better not comment at all. Thanks!