Inquirer Editorial

Editorial : Gamblers

TWO weeks into the hearings of the House committee on justice, the country has gotten enough of a preview into the thinking of both sides to inspire unease. However much both sides insist that there are serious matters of law and procedure to consider, it seems impossible to escape the conclusion that both sides are gambling with the good of the nation.

It all began with Oliver Lozano and his complaint, which, as he himself points out, was backed both by an administration congressman (Alagad Rep. Rodante Marcoleta) and one from the opposition (Iloilo Rep. Rolex Suplico). At the time Lozano filed his complaint, it was criticized as either motivated by publicity-hungry opportunism or an administration-sponsored attempt to forestall a serious impeachment effort. To this day, Lozano denies this, but also to this day, the bone of contention in the House is what to do with Lozano's complaint and the various efforts to supplement it.

Last Wednesday, after the ugly shouting matches in the same committee the day before, the issue was finally joined. The administration insists that the question of at least three complaints (the idea that the complaints really number 10 seems to have been dropped) having been filed, while the Constitution only permits one, must be resolved before the committee goes on to determine whether the complaint is sufficient in both form and substance. The opposition, of course, disagrees and wants the first and third complaints treated as one, with the second thrown out. The majority congressmen came close to simply railroading the issue: they wanted to resume their meeting after a brief break to permit the House as a whole to begin and then suspend its session, but the minority objected. What followed was a decision to resume the committee meeting on Tuesday, or almost a week later. So much for focusing on their work.

However, if the political considerations involved are examined, the decision makes some sense. Administration representatives have said time and again that it is in the interest of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to fast-track the process. The opposition, on the other hand, claims a speedy process harms their chances of coming up with the magic figure of 79 signatures. But then other representatives say to prolong the process is to increase the chances that the administration can influence congressmen to withdraw support from impeachment.

So which is it? We can't help recalling what one congressman said before the impeachment hearings began. The congressman said his colleagues wanted to fully "ventilate" their views, suggesting that the House was jealous of media attention and airtime being hogged by the Senate. Tacticians on both sides of the political fence have observed that dragging the process out serves the interests of both sides. It gives administration allies time to consolidate their ranks and even raid the ranks of the opposition. For the opposition, delaying the process is an opportunity to achieve maximum pre-trial publicity, while (as some cynics put it) saving money by avoiding being held hostage by the last four or five necessary signatories who might demand a high price.

There is a larger question here, of course, and it is whether either side is truly interested in sending the impeachment complaint to the Senate for trial. The President's initial confidence ("impeach me") has been replaced by a stubborn insistence on exploring every single legal and procedural issue open to her supporters to obstruct and delay the process. This approach has been matched by the opposition's zeal in milking the hearings for as much publicity it can get rather than arguing substantive law.

Both sides are gambling big-time. One side is gambling on the public's incapacity to sustain interest for long, while the other is gambling on the possibility that it would be able to whip up public outrage. Dragging the process out thus serves the interests of both camps, however those interests are defined.

It may be unfair to characterize the House majority as more interested in appearing to support impeachment while actually laying down the basis for dismissing it, just as it might be wrong to think the opposition lacks confidence that it can pursue its case successfully. But it is fair to suggest that the interests of both sides seem to run counter to what the broader public wants. While the House seems to be ambivalent on the issue, the public clearly wants a Senate trial.