The decision of the Senate to archive the impeachment case is not a defeat of justice but a recognition of the Supreme Court’s authority as the final arbiter. To be honest, had the senators decided to proceed with a trial despite the ruling, it would have resulted in a constitutional crisis and potentially precipitated the destruction of significant governmental institutions.

Those few solons who are opposed to the Tribunal’s decision have been asserting that the judiciary should not have interfered with the Senate’s exercise of independent judgment concerning VP Sara’s case.

Such a claim is misplaced at best. While the upper house has the sole duty to constitute itself into an impeachment court and conduct a trial, justiciable issues relating to the legality of the impeachment process or lack thereof are within the ambit of the Court’s expanded jurisdiction.

To say that it is a political question is not correct. In a long line of cases, the Court has emphatically clarified that any controversy involving any provision of the Constitution is within its province to resolve.

Since it has spoken, the only option is to comply and obey. The senators knew that and presumably knew they didn’t even have to deliberate in the first place. They also knew they couldn’t afford to obstruct the subject decision given its serious legal repercussions.

Yet they still decided to do so because it was an opportunity for political grandstanding. They didn’t have to, as it was clearly a futile exercise, but they did anyway, if only to push for their respective agendas.

Considering that there is a pending motion for reconsideration, our “esteemed” lawmakers could have just decided to wait for the Court’s resolution before making any move. But their love for histrionics and gimmickry took the better of them.

They wasted our time deliberating on a consensus that ultimately has no significant value since everything rests on how the Court would settle the recon move. If it affirms its earlier pronouncement, it means they cannot try the case. If it reverses the decision, they can simply convene again and continue.

But the way they create narratives to either extol or lambast their resolve to archive the case gives the impression that their collective action deserves utmost importance, which is total crap, for lack of a better term.

Honestly, I don’t like their idea of politicizing the decision of the Court. There is a reason why, as much as possible, we want the judiciary to be removed from politics in the same way we want to keep our soldiers in the barracks.

Even Larry Gadon knows that!