The submission of the Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President enjoys the presumption of regularity and therefore may only be questioned by filing a case in court. That the Senate, sitting as an impeachment tribunal, should have proceeded instead of conducting a trial goes without saying. That is the mandate of the law. No ifs and buts.

There is a reason why that is the case. Impeachment is a constitutional remedy designed to address serious offenses against the system of government. Being a remedial process, it seeks to remove erring impeachable officials from office and bar them from holding public office perpetually. After all, public office is public trust.

The problem, though, is that impeachment in practice is simply a numbers game — a political exercise meant to be used as a weapon to persecute political opponents. No more, no less. Our historical experience buttresses this. When former Chief Justice Renato Corona was impeached and eventually convicted, it was obviously at the behest of a former president who had an axe to grind against him. The fact that he was exonerated subsequently in court proves that he was innocent and indubitably not deserving of a guilty verdict.

The same thing, in fact, can be said about Atty. Maria Lourdes Sereno, who was unceremoniously removed from office as Chief Justice, albeit the impeachment case against her did not actually materialize.

But that’s the issue with public accountability. It is pursued not really to hold the subject individual liable but simply to stifle his or her political chances. This is why, even sans the presentation of evidence, one can already predict how the members of the impeachment court would cast their votes. They are not expected to be impartial but are rather predicted to behave based on their predetermined political choices and maneuverings. To say that those who would convict Sara are motivated by their love for country and those who would acquit her are enablers of wrongdoing is way out of line. All of them are motivated by one shared goal — political opportunism!

Since former President Estrada was removed from office, we have actually sent to jail quite a number of public officials. Despite that, though, we have not really succeeded at addressing corruption. Why? Because justice remains selective, often weaponized by the powers-that-be to weaken their opponents. At the height of the PDAF controversy, only those at odds with President Aquino were prosecuted in court, while those deemed allies were spared despite the fact that they too had deeper ties with Napoles. During the presidency of Duterte, his government unabashedly sent Leila de Lima to prison albeit for want of concrete evidence. Now that the tide has turned, it is now he who is at the receiving end.

Selective justice ironically serves no justice but rather supports, if not outright sponsors, injustice. It doesn’t really uphold the law, as it contradicts the principle of equality which is the very heart of our justice system. Instead of curbing corruption and preventing tyrannical rule, it emboldens those in power to solidify their rule by crushing their political enemies in the guise of the pursuit of justice and, in turn, enables them to commit abuses left and right.

The other day, Cong. Acop said that if impeachment fails, it sends the wrong signal that justice applies only to those who are poor and powerless. This is a blatantly misleading motherhood statement. If she gets acquitted or her case is dismissed, it simply means she has the numbers!