Escudero’s trial

Escudero’s trial | Daily Tribune

Dawdling over the meaning of words and the intent of procedures has caused Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero’s ignoble fall from political respectability, making him a tired political footnote.

Subjected to countless memes criticizing his, for lack of a better term, discombobulation over the word “forthwith,” he is being nuked over allegations he is deliberately dribbling the ball on Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial.

So much so, this princeling of Filipino politics now stands accused of chickening out in the face of the Veep’s largely unproven political clout.

He also stands accused of being a party to the disgusting attempt to quickly dismiss the impeachment complaints against the Veep, in aid of his personal ambitions.

But we’re not surprised. After all, he is a political survivor, ably navigating the rough and tumble of Filipino politics by speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

Yet in recent months, he seems to have lost that keen sense for survival. We don’t know who he has listened to, or continues to listen to, regarding the Veep’s impeachment — which has essentially done him in.

But judging from the loose talk of his closest and longstanding aides, he brought it all upon himself after he apparently misjudged the present volatile political climate.

Still, Escudero might yet have a chance at redemption. He, however, has to act now. For starters, he has to firmly and confidently remind those who are using him that sabotaging the trial is also politically disastrous to them.

He needs to make it pointedly clear that as the impeachment trial progresses, even for a short time, it is not only the Veep who would be on the dock but also themselves.

He can speak authoritatively too. He survived the political fallout of an earlier impeachment trial, which he had partly enabled after he went along with the “midnight appointment” of a Supreme Court chief justice.

Now, if he is the Senate leader he prides himself to be, he should ably convince his fellow senators that they are abdicating their constitutional duty, as well as committing a culpable violation of the Constitution, if there will be no trial.

As such, Escudero should make it known this early that he is firmly against any move that will prevent the convening of the impeachment court.

He should also make it clearly known that he personally cannot abide views that insist the impeachment court is a mere legislative procedure, which it clearly is not.

Constitutionally, an impeachment court always will be “a class of its own,” clearly making it a continuing body.

“The impeachment process is a constitutional mandate, not a legislative bill that expires at the stroke of midnight. Once the House transmitted the Articles of Impeachment, the Senate was constitutionally bound to convene as an impeachment court — no ifs, no buts,” as one congressman succinctly put it.

In fact, Escudero should be wary of attempts to make the impeachment court’s status debatable. He knows full well the Supreme Court is the only body which can resolve any question about the Senate’s constitutional mandate regarding impeachment.

Escudero’s excuse, meanwhile, that it is the Senate plenary that can legitimately decide if the trial will continue or not, or if the trial can cross over to the next Congress or not, is also similarly infirm.

Here, it is largely because during a Senate plenary session the senators are acting only as senators, while in an impeachment court they are acting as senator-judges. The hyphen makes all the difference.

All this may be a tall order for a wily politician seeking political compromise all around. In the end, Escudero has to prove he is made of sterner stuff as he answers the one remaining personal question: “What do I truly desire now — ignominy or redemption?”