Ethics lesson for Pia and peers

The Senate impeachment court offered an important lesson last week on how the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte ought to be conducted, and how those participating in it ought to conduct themselves.

One senator-judge in particular, Sen. Pia Cayetano, could have benefited from that reminder.

Let’s go back to Wednesday’s hearing. As prosecution panel member Rep. Leila de Lima laid out the case against Duterte over her alleged misuse of confidential funds, Sen. Francis Escudero sustained repeated objections from the defense, ruling she had ventured into “conclusions of fact and law.”

Article continues after this advertisement

The presiding officer stopped De Lima from finishing her opening statement. But the Mamamayang Liberal party list representative managed a parting shot before Escudero ordered it stricken from the record: “When the Filipino people entrusted their money to [Duterte], was that trust honored? That question will not be answered by politics, by general denials, by press releases. It will be answered by the witnesses, by the documents, by audit, and by the evidence. The prosecution is ready to present it.”

Legal minds may disagree on whether Escudero ruled correctly, but the principle underlying his decision brooks little argument: An impeachment trial must not begin with conclusions. The evidence comes first.

Ethics complaint

That standard of discipline is expected of prosecutors and defense lawyers, but even more of senator-judges.

The ethics complaint by prominent women leaders against Cayetano argues she breached that standard with her Facebook post that edited House prosecutor and Akbayan party list Rep. Chel Diokno’s remarks to suggest the prosecution was accusing the Vice President without evidence.

Article continues after this advertisement

The omitted portion told a different story. Diokno explained that the prosecution’s request for financial records was supported by Anti-Money Laundering Council documents involving billions of pesos that allegedly passed through the accounts of Duterte and her husband, making the subpoena anything but a “fishing expedition.” The court itself later granted the request.

Cayetano has chosen to keep her counsel on the brouhaha, and one would wish she had taken this tack from the start.

Still, the episode is proof that a senator-judge’s responsibility does not end when the session closes. Every public statement, interview, or online post they make carries the weight of judicial office while the trial is underway.

Article continues after this advertisement

Credibility of the Senate

The issue goes to the credibility of the Senate itself as an impeachment court and, especially, to public confidence that whatever verdict it ultimately reaches would rest on evidence rather than allegiances.

Whether the ethics committee finds merit in the complaint submitted by Tindig Pilipinas is for the panel to decide. What is beyond dispute is that senator-judges occupy a unique constitutional role, having sworn an oath to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws of the Philippines.”

Cayetano did not shed that obligation when she removed her impeachment robes and logged on to Facebook in her private time.

House prosecutors have wisely avoided demanding punishment. Instead, they have reminded senator-judges of the discipline their office requires. “A senator-judge must first listen to the entire case and weigh all the evidence before reaching any conclusion,” prosecution spokesperson Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said. “A senator-judge is not counsel for either side. Their duty is to remain fair, keep an open mind, and decide only after hearing all the evidence.”

Earned through restraint

Impeachment is, by design, a political process. Senators naturally bring with them long-held alliances, ideological beliefs and personal histories. No one expects senators to become blank slates upon taking their oath.

The Constitution, however, expects senator-judges to conduct themselves in a manner that assures the public their political loyalties and predispositions will not dictate the outcome.

Senator-judges earn that trust not by declaring neutrality but through restraint. That means resisting the urge to comment, speculate or otherwise signal where one stands before the evidence has run its course.

For judges, appearances count almost as much as reality. The damage lies not only in actual bias but in the perception that the verdict may have been written before the last witness has testified or the final piece of evidence has been presented.

The Senate has insisted that this impeachment trial rise above ordinary politics. That aspiration begins with its judges. However tempted Cayetano and her peers might be to respond to provocations, real or imagined, they have no business engaging in behavior, on or off the bench, that reduces these proceedings to a farce.

The Senate court was right to insist that conclusions must follow evidence. It follows, then, that those entrusted to render judgment should be the last to leave the impression that they have already reached theirs. /cb