Impressive? Maybe yes -- to an impressionable public. But though it may be useful to marshal a whole array of allegations and charges to win the battle for public opinion, such a shotgun approach is really unnecessary, counterproductive and dilatory if the objective is to impeach Ms Arroyo and strip her of the presidency quickly. In an impeachment case, it doesn't matter whether the accused is found guilty of one crime or a dozen ones. Either way, all the punishment she will suffer is the loss of her high office.
One well-prepared, well-supported and well-argued case is all it takes to achieve this objective, so it's a waste of time and effort to file so many other charges that may prove hard to substantiate in the end. If the opposition wants to have an early resolution of this crisis, it should dispense with pyrotechnics, like filing so many charges, and focus on a couple or at most, a handful that can be built into solid cases.
Ironically, the more promising ones may not even directly involve the allegation that triggered the crisis -- electoral fraud -- since the most damaging proof of that available now is an illegal wiretap which cannot be used in legal proceedings. But there are some constitutional experts, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., among them, who say that just talking to an election official (which the President has publicly admitted) at such a critical time, already constitutes betrayal of public trust.
What would be less debatable is direct testimony given by persons who may have known first-hand certain presidential actions and decisions tainted by graft and corruption. If even just one of the seven Cabinet members who resigned last July 8 were to start talking about some shady transactions he or she personally knew about, the President could be in deeper trouble than she already is.
The opposition knows this very well. San Juan Rep. Ronaldo Zamora, who is heading the opposition's legal team, said he was confident that some of them would testify against the President. Imelda Nicolas, former chair of the National Anti-Poverty Commission, said she and others among the so-called Hyatt 10 were willing to testify "if we know something relevant to the charges." Former Social Welfare Secretary Corazon Soliman had earlier said she was ready to testify under oath. One former Cabinet member, who didn't want to be identified, said some of those in their group knew about some questionable transactions, particularly with regard to the disbursement of disaster relief funds allegedly for political purposes.
Unless the opposition has other more substantial proof of official wrongdoing, whether in connection with the elections or misuse of public funds, it cannot go wrong if it concentrated its effort on securing the cooperation of these officials, who were once in a position to participate in delicate discussions. They might even have been party to some questionable decisions and illegal transactions. And they seem convinced that the way to save the nation is to bring the Arroyo administration down. Having failed once when their demand for the President's resignation was ignored, will they go for broke and tell everything they know?
The answer could very well hinge on how much they can trust the opposition to follow the Constitution. One key proposal the resigned Cabinet members made was that power be handed over to the constitutional successor: Vice President Noli de Castro. Removing the President through impeachment should pave the way for such an orderly transition. But is the opposition ready to accept such an outcome?
No comments:
Post a Comment