RISK IN ROBRIDO’S IMPEACHMENT

Introduction

This is a written critique on the commentary The Risks in Robredo’s impeachment by Raul J.
Palabrica – https:/opinion.inquirer.net/102936/risks-robrido-impeachment. The main
argument in the commentary is Vice President Leni Robredo’s video message to the United
Nations about extra judicial killings in the Philippines to which for Speaker Pantaleon
Alvarez, it constitutes betrayal of public trust because it humiliated the country before the
international community.
The Speaker of the House, if indeed makes his threat to file impeachment, it will be a
foregone conclusion. But for the writer’s stand on it, there will be risks and probably
collateral damage to the country if it will be pursued.

Body

The issue in broader context is the supposed impeachable offense committed by the Vice
President for the said video message which explain the people complained to her about the
‘palit ulo’ scheme where relatives of suspected drug users or pushers whom the police were
unable to arrest were arrested in their stead. The strength of this argument is the exposure of
the supposed activities of the authorities that may violate human rights, while the weakness is
the impact of the alleged operations that will affect the administration’s campaign against
illegal drugs.

The structure of the essay developed by the author signifies the chronological events of the
impeachment process. As Speaker of the House, Pantaleon Alvarez can easily muster the 99
signatures to make Robrido the first Philippine Vice President to be impeached and tried by
the Philippine Senate. Alvarez, as a Speaker, has ‘carrots’ under his command that can
convince most of his fellow congressmen to share his belief that Robrido committed an
impeachable offense. The author mentions that under the Philippine Constitution, an
impeachment complaint signed by at least one-third of the members of the House of
Representatives is sufficient to send the complaint to the senate for trial.

The author believes that since impeachment is a numbers game, the question of whether or
not Robredo committed an impeachable offense is immaterial because of the mentioned
presumptions. Palabrica viewed Robrido’s impeachment could be a walk in the park or easy
in the lower house, but there is no assurance that her impeachment trial and conviction
would be in the smooth process.

According to the author, if the trial pushes through, the senators would have to defer their
deliberations on pending bills and devote several days in a week to hear the evidence and
arguments for and against Robrido’s conviction. The trial process will absolutely result in
delay in the approval of the admistration’s priority bills.

During the trial process, Robrido is expected to invite to the witness stand her witnesses
about the alleged extra judicial killings and the ‘pali ulo’ scheme of the authorities. Palabrica
explains that the witnesses will testify on nationwide radio and televisions, and with this
event, the gory details of the war on drugs will be brought right into living rooms nationwide
and, in the process, according to him, may generate empathy for the victim’s families.

Palabrica likewise explains that when the names of the police officers allegedly involved in
the killings are disclosed, The Philippine National Police will be put on the defensive end. He
further explains that the publicity will be a boon to the local and international critics of the
administrations campaign against illegal drugs. The Duterte administration will surely not
favour on this scenarios.

The author’s analysis is that there is this biggest concern for those behind the moves to
impeach
Robrido is being able to convince at least two-thirds of the senators, or 16, to find her guilty.
Assuming that Alvarez’s party, PDP-Laban, forces the issue on its members or allies, only six
– Senate President and Senators Alan Peter Cayetano, Cynthia Villar, Tito Sotto, Juan Miguel
Zubiri and Manny Pacquiao – can be expected to vote for conviction.

He further analyses that a ‘not guilty’ verdict is assured from Robrido’s six fellow Liberal
Party members – i.e. Senators Bam Aquino, Franklin Drilon, Francis Pangilinan, Risa
Hontiveros, Ralph Recto and Leila de Lima. Make that seven if Sen. Sonny Trillanes, who has
no love lost for Mr. Duterte, joins them.

The author narrates that most importantly, the majority of the senators have higher political
aspirations to look forward to beyond President Duterte’s term. He farther comments that
those prospects make it imperative for them to avoid alienating the Bicolano voters who look
to Robrido as their favourite daughter and the women voters who hold them in high esteem.

Palabrica’s logic is that senators are independent-minded and have no need for patronage
from the ruling party for their political survival.

My opinion to writer’s points and arguments is his foregone conclusion that the impeachment
will do more harm than good to the country. His arguments suggest that the impeachment
will farther divide the country. The supporters of the president and the followers of the vice
president.
Here are the facts that will support my opinion. According to Palabrica, there is no doubt that
the proceedings on Robrido will be broadcast live nationwide. Considering the interest of the
European Union and the United Nations in the issue of extra judicial killings, there is a strong
possibility that the international media will also monitor her trial. The print and live media
coverage likewise happened during the impeachment of then President Joseph Estrada and
then Chief Justice Renato Corona. The chronology of events during impeachment trial
exposes the partisan nature of the Filipinos, both the politicians and the public. The author
concluded that it is not good for the country.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the author floated the scenario of the impeachment process that may be easy in
the lower chamber which is the congress but no probability in the upper chamber that is the
senate. He narrated the impact of the impeachment to the country as a whole, as can be seen
during Estrada and Corona trials. The delays in the priority bills. The war on drugs and the
alleged extra judicial killings. The independent mindedness of the senators.

Citing the above premise, the author suggests that there is little to gain, if any, from Robrido’s
impeachment. But I may suggest that Mr. Palabrica should likewise comment on a scenario of
the impact to the Philippines if high government officials directly reporting to the
international community regarding the local affairs in our country.