Itâ€™s been almost a month since the prosecution under President Noynoy Aquino’s (PNoyâ€™s) guiding hand made a bold move and attempted to allegedly bring Chief Justice Renato Corona to justice. Armed with PNoyâ€™s convoluted sense of justice and the will of the brainwashed masses through unrelenting trial by publicity, the prosecution, led by Niel Tupas, Jr., entered the legal arena, full of confidence that they will finally bring Gloriaâ€™s “lackey” down and score some points for PNoyâ€™s rapidly deteriorating credibility.
But, in an amusingly cruel twist of fate, it seems that the tables have turned in favor of the defense led by Serafin Cuevas, and now the smug prosecution is at a great disadvantage. Grasping at straws and for breath, Tupas and his allies now struggle to even establish a reliable premise that will hold a candle against the scrutiny of the defense and the Senate.
The prosecution started the fight with confidence and a speech from Oliver Cromwell, and now they are waist-deep in nationwide embarrassment. What could have possibly gone wrong?
1. Evidences and Witnesses
The prosecution has made a bold claim; that they have incriminating evidence that will prove Coronaâ€™s guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. The key supposedly lies on Coronaâ€™s Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth form. But then, as it turns out, the â€œincriminating evidenceâ€ is nothing but a laughable travesty of solid and reliable evidence. The prosecution began by boasting about having found forty-five of Coronaâ€™s properties, which will strongly point towards graft and corruption. Now, they are quick to dismiss their connection with the disclosure of misinformation, admitting that they were only able to gather around twenty-four, as investigation unravelled a blatant lie; most of Coronaâ€™s â€œpropertiesâ€ listed on the prosecutionsâ€™ evidence arenâ€™t actually his, or are split into many pieces to boost the numbers.
Then we have the plethora of witnesses the prosecution prepared against the defendant, hardly anyone of whom became of noticeable use to strengthen the prosecutionâ€™s stand. Witnesses were discouraged to testify in court, and the prosecution can hardly do anything about this dilemma.
This is irresponsible handling of ammunition in court. The prosecution simply cannot manage its resources well, committing blunder after blunder by summoning witnesses who can hardly shed a light on the matter, and presenting inconclusive and heavily flawed evidences, which are even disclosed publicly. This move violated Rule XVIII of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Trial, putting the prosecution in an even more delicate position.
2. Dissing the Authorities
Despite impeachment trials having this professional nature, as it is conducted by men experienced in the ways of law, when simplified, they are basically the same as plain old debates. And in debating, it is your aim to persuade the mind… and the heart, as mentioned by my English 10 professor. Simply put, while it is of extreme importance that you prove your point with rational analysis, it is also important to gain the favor of the audience or the judge, simply because they are the ones capable of making the final judgment that will determine your case. This is still in accordance with the professional nature of impeachment trials; making a good impression, or just plain old etiquette.
The prosecution observed little to nothing of the sort. Just ask Sen. Miriam Santiago as she argued with Atty. Lim of the prosecution. Just ask Tupas and his criminally detestable angst. Just ask their blunders in presenting evidences that merely prolonged the increasingly causeless trial, leaving the jury scratching their heads in disbelief. In steadily earning the contempt of the jury, the prosecution isolated itself further and further from victory. In close scrutiny, trials are mind games, not vanity projects. Boasting your â€œincriminating evidencesâ€ in public and flaunting your way to the courts do not win the juryâ€™s favor to your side. Logic and strategy will, as demonstrated by the defense. Clearly, the prosecution has much to learn, and much to do to learn in the first place, like, say, acquiring a mind, for starters.
As much as this adage is clichÃ©d, but this applies to whatâ€™s currently happening within the ranks of the prosecution; â€œthere is no â€˜Iâ€™ in team.â€ The defense and the prosecution come in teams for this big trial for a reason; many heads, in general, are better than one. It is only imperative and rational, henceforth, to maximize the efficiency of oneâ€™s team for optimum results. Although the actual collective intelligence of the prosecution will be inevitably brought to light, letâ€™s just say that they somehow possess sufficient intellectual prowess, for the sake of the point I now try to convey.
As the trial progressed, emotional turmoil sprouted in the midst of the prosecution. Some prosecutors took the spotlight for themselves, while others itch uncontrollably to combat the defense. One of the prosecutors reportedly even walked out of the trial out of desperation. This is an unhealthy relationship. Clearly, there is a need for the prosecutors to consider how they are to work together on this case, or whether they even should. After all, they only have themselves to blame if things go topsy-turvy on their perspective.
4. The Motive
Perhaps what could be the most crucial point regarding why the prosecution fails miserably is the actual motive. What is their intention in trying to prove Coronaâ€™s guilt? Are they really after justice, or are they nothing but mere slaves, acting according to what our holier-than-thou President sees fit? Because, in light of events, one could rationally expect a more acceptable performance than the sick comedy we currently witness, provided that they really are seeking justice for justiceâ€™s sake.
He who does best does what he wants best. In the case of the prosecution, they might not be after plain old justice in the first place, what with their utter stupidity in the ways of the court, something that theoretically shouldnâ€™t happen if youâ€™re dedicated to what youâ€™re doing.
No matter how the intellectually inept Yellow masses deny this fact, the prosecutionâ€™s momentum is rapidly going downhill. Problems just keep sprouting in the midst of the clowns, internal and external. Faced with the events that transpired in the middle of the trial, I can think of at least three possibilities for the future of the prosecution:
1. That they will lose. Plain and simple.
Given the fact that the prosecution is losing this war, it is entirely possible, even probable, that they will lose this impeachment trial. However, given PNoyâ€™s intense, to the point of being twisted, conviction of stretching his influence to the judiciary, it is highly unlikely that the prosecution will lose without any large-scale repercussions.
2. That the prosecution will be forced to opt for an unimpeachable offense instead.
Again and again the grounds from which the prosecution argues have been criticized by the Senate as â€œunimpeachable.â€ Coronaâ€™s dishonesty in his SALN, when proven, will mount to perjury at best, an offense which is by no means unimpeachable.
Quoting an excerpt from this article:
Senator Ralph Recto asked the prosecution the penalty for inaccuracies in the SALN.
â€œAccording to a Supreme Court decision, the filer would be liable for perjury because he was under oath that the information is true,â€ Barzaga said.
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, presiding officer of the impeachment court, quizzed the prosecution if perjury is a high crime.
â€œNo, your honor,â€ Barzaga replied.
â€œThen it is not a ground for impeachment,â€ Enrile pointed out.
It is interesting to note that since practically the entirety of the prosecutionâ€™s argument hinges on Coronaâ€™s SALN, then thereâ€™s a strong possibility that the prosecution will be forced to pursue an unimpeachable offense instead. This possibility is reinforced by Tupasâ€™ vague requests for the Senate to relax the rules. Such move will certainly better their chances of winning, but will severely undermine their primary objective for this trial in the first, not to mention losing the will of the brainwashed masses and PNoyâ€™s favor.
3. That PNoy will launch another people power in retaliation.
In all probability, considering the current state of things, the trial may well end up with a â€œNot Guiltyâ€ verdict. What would PNoy do in response, given his influence on his minions? Benign0 offered his insights regarding the Presidentâ€™s possible actions should Corona get acquitted from the impeachment trial.
(For more information, check out the article “Will Noynoy Aquino incite rebellion if Chief Justice Renato Corona is acquitted?” which is also found on this website.)
Considering the Yellowâ€™s infectious influence on the media and the Filipino people, it is not ridiculous to say that a revolution will probably happen next, post-acquittal. After all, our nation has a strange knack for organizing faux People Power movements to muscle their way to getting what they want, as shown by the two EDSA revolutions in our history. Therefore, this I say to you; brace yourself for some hearty laughs, for a dummy revolution is brewing.
Looking back to how the trial turns out, I donâ€™t think I want to be in the prosecutionâ€™s shoes any sooner.