VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

By Wilhelmina S. Orozco

The recent happenings at the Impeachment Court point to a new issue on what kind of senators and representatives we must elect into office. The Constitution merely says that:

The Senator “is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding of the election. The member of the House of Representatives meanwhile shall be “a natural born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he (she)  shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.” (Art VI Sec 6)

Other requirements include being elected from legislative districts “apportioned  among the provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ration, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties of organizations.” (Art VI Sec 5-2.)

Now is there any provision which says that the representative must know the laws of the land and the court rules to the letter? None whatsoever. Does it say that they must be knowledgeable about the way an impeachment case should be framed? None.

In other words, the only basic requirement of the representatives, and all other officials of the land, is love of country, among all those mentioned above. Love of country means believing in human rights and defending the country, the flag, and the Constitution at all costs.

Now it does not really matter to me if the Impeachment Court is being dominated by people with law backgrounds mostly, are law academicians, or even are members of the bar. What really matters to me is that the people’s voice is being downgraded most of the time, if not all of the time by those who are pro-Chief Justice. That is what should send chills to us, not the mere mention of the Anti-Money Laundering agents peering into the foreign savings and checking accounts of certain individuals and corporations.

Sometimes I think there is a forgetting that the members of the Impeachment Court have been elected by the Filipino people and that they represent the voices of the people., Hence, there should be collegiality and respect for each other. The aim of this Congressional Impeachment Court is to ferret out the truth – how does the Chief Justice live and work as such? Does he lead a virtuous life and therefore worthy of emulation of every Filipino citizen?

Sure there are laws governing individual rights but presenting evidences does not mean that the senator judges would already somersault and take them as points against the Chief Justice. The senator judges have their own minds but should be given all the necessary details of the life, the transactions, his relationships with different individuals or corporations and businesses which could bolster (or maybe weaken)  the charges against him.

Now what is wrong with that? To my mind, the Impeachment Court is a creation of Congress and not of the Judiciary. This is why it must evolve its own rules. Even analyzing the decisions of the Chief Justice on the many cases and the surrounding circumstances with which he had made them,  have to be evaluated with regard to the raising or reducing the weight of the charges against him.

But if at every turn of the discussions (note these are just discussions, and not judgment yet) the Defense would be allowed to thwart all presentations of evidences, then it seems that the lawyers and law academicians are the ones ruling the Impeachment Court and the people’s voice is already being deadened.

This does not augur well for our strengthening the pillars of democracy in our country. We need all kinds of people in the government – and that is the essence of democracy after all. We must insist that the Voice of the People is the Voice of the Law not the other way around.