SOLIPSISM AND MORAL GOVERNANCE

By Wilhelmina S. Orozco

It is entirely puzzling to me how an institution with a questionable status of its leader could possibly come up with an objective and neutral decision regarding the very process that is searching for his culpability. Is that not solipsism of the highest order?

Should a self-serving institution be allowed to dispense justice when within itself and the topmost position is the question: “is he morally fit to govern?”

I think it is all right for the Supreme Court to continue deciding case except in the case involving its officials. It would not be able to render a wise judgment considering that the person/s involved are in close proximity to them, have been their colleagues, arguing, discussing and dining with them, too for many years and years, and  whatever kind of relationships they could have developed among themselves.

I know for a fact how a government institution works because I used to work with the Budget Commission  now called the Development Budget and Management Office. as a senior management specialist during martial law. I work, interacted with my co-employees, saw and was told then how some officials had managed to wear rings with several karats of diamonds, how they could manipulate the budget so that they themselves would have a commission from every position created, classified and given a sizeable allocation that ran into millions. Remember that was the time when the “bitter half” of the dictator was also poking her finger into the pie. But as these officials had their heyday shaping the budget and having a slice of the pie afterwards, their underlings also partook of the manna secretly, of course. Closeness to each other produced that secret bonding as they shared common experiences – that of working under the same institution and of enjoying perks to the hilt.

Thus, I cannot see the point how this highest judicial body could even render an objective decision now regarding the impeachment. It is simply impossible. Maybe it should just concentrate on other matters, but definitely not on the impeachment.

Why? Let us ask, who has the moral ascendancy at this time to make that decision on the impeachment case? By moral ascendancy I mean the most ethical body. Our Constitution answers, Congress – the House of Representatives who presented the impeachment case and the Senate Body as the jurors whether the case has grounds or not for conviction of the charged party.

But why Congress? Because Congress is composed of elected officials. No one there sits without having been voted by the people, officially. There is a process for an official to get elected and that is through proper nomination and official elections, meaning to say, the Commission on Elections puts up the nomination period, then the election period, and then the counting of the votes for the individuals elected as officials. Millions of Filipino people of age trek out and vote for their candidates, their leaders whom they want to sit in the august halls of moral governing institutions.

In other words, Congress is composed of morally-fit officials, morally fit meaning their powers come from the people, millions of them. And when we view the impeachment case hearings, we see the people whom we have elected to sit on our behalf and make decisions for us. Should anyone of them choose to backslide, then that official could earn our ire in the next elections and we can say to him or her, “Sorry, your actions while being an official has been found wanting.”

Any which way, Congress is the final arbiter whether an official is fit to govern. On Congress lodges the Impeachment Court. And because it is composed of elected officials, we do not expect everyone to be like lawyers arguing, debating, by the law books but by that body of knowledge they know which they have culled from their interactions with the Filipino people, their own educational backgrounds – whether in law or other fields, and their experiences as leaders with knowledge of what is moral governance for the people.

Ergo, the Impeachment Court must abide by their own understanding of how an official must be impeached, taking cognizance probably of upheld rules of court but not necessarily to be strongly bound by it, as a senator-judge always insists upon it – but by that human understanding of how to perceive whether the impeached official is telling the truth.

How does one know if the impeached person is telling the truth? And how does one get at the truth? Evidences, evidences and loads of them. But should the presentation of evidence go by the books again? Not necessarily. The Impeachment Court has to evolve its own many ways of ferreting out the truth – from the people’s many creative ways, and based on that respect for human rights.

The Filipino people have that right to be morally governed by officials. They rightfully elected officials and so expect that these officials to perform what is right for them. Now the justices of the Supreme Court are not elected by the people but rather appointed by the president. Although they sit in a government position, most of them do not directly view the people as their benefactors but that person sitting in the presidential seat and signing their appointment papers. They are not allowed to sit in the Impeachment Court because they do not go through the election process conducted, led and managed by the people.

Now why was a member/s of the Supreme Court not included in the Impeachment Court? The nature of work of a justice is mental, or supposed to be mental and emotional. By mental we mean that reason is used for analyzing the case and emotions for viewing the charged person with humaneness. As we are spiritually attuned, we would even add that the nature of work is also spiritual as decisions on cases require that of accessing the highest truths that the Great Creator, regardless of faiths, could possibly be rendering on the cases lodged to them for judgment.  

Hence, the Congressional Impeachment Court has the highest moral ground to render judgment on whether an official is fit or unfit to administer the functions of the position to which he/she has been appointed further.

All the senator-jurors are accountable to the people with regard to the decisions they should and would be making in the impeachment case. Millions put them in their seats and therefore, it is the people’s welfare that should be the basis of their decision on the impeachment case at every turn of the trial.

Now, should the current chief justice continue to be employed considering that there are huge questions of his moral fitness to govern? How shall the people reason with regard to the questions that are raised on the floor? What would be their points of view with regard to the wealth that is unfolding before the court? Should the chief justice be given another chance to prove his worth or should he be replaced right away? Is there room for moral reform within the government? Should that reform be undertaken while being in that position?

Unfortunately, we are talking here of the highest position in the magistrate body. The leader must exercise highest moral grounds in terms of conduct, personally and officially. Hence, to be found with an iota of doubt is already a smear on his reputation as a leader and as an official with a governing function for the people. And for the same institution to which he belongs to render judgment on his capability is self-serving instead of people-serving.

Let us remember that every government official is the people’s servant. Hence, there is not even room for so-called objectivity here because the fundamental basis of sitting in the Impeachment Court is to render judgment that will benefit the people. That in itself is already a bias for the people’s judgment.