Estrada impeachment trial: Beware of historical flukes

By Amando Doronila

MANILA: The impeachment trial of President Estrada in the Senate is at the same time a trial of the independence of probably the most venerable political institution in Philippine democracy. While the Senate acts as a jury that will decide whether President Estrada will be removed from office on account of impeachment charges laid by the House of Representatives, the senators are going to be judged by a larger tribunal -- the Filipino people.

With the survival of the Estrada presidency now in their hands, the senators are under the spotlight in the midst of reports that the embattled President will not spare resources available to his office to try to influence their decision leading to his acquittal.

The new Senate president, Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, who deposed Sen. Franklin Drilon after Drilon defected from Estrada's LAMP legislative coalition, began preparing the chamber for the trial in early December with a protestation of his independence after acknowledging he turned down cash gifts from the President. Pimentel enjoys the benefit of the doubt after chairing the Senate blue ribbon committee hearings even-handedly and fairly, as well as decisively. The opportunity provided by the hearings for Gov. Luis "Chavit" Singson to detail his charges that Estrada took millions in bribes from illegal jueteng money and from tobacco excise tax was the catalyst of the snowballing public demand for Estrada's resignation.

At this point, the prospects of Estrada being convicted or acquitted hang on the slender balance of probably two to three swing votes in the 22-member Senate.

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago's bald assertion that Estrada would be acquitted on the basis of her perception of the alignment of forces in the Senate underlines the fierce partisanship generated by the trial and reflects the overconfidence placed by the President to use resources to influence the impeachment vote.

If the Senate interprets the two-thirds vote requirement to impeach to be based on 24 Senate members (there are two vacancies), it would require the vote of 16 senators to convict the President. Santiago claims that those opposing conviction form a "core" vote of eight pro-Estrada senators, and only one more vote is needed to win acquittal. Santiago based her calculation on the l3 senators who voted for Pimentel as Senate president. This calculation puts the odds in favor of the President and of acquittal. It assumes that with his resources, it is easier for the President to raid the ranks of pro- impeachment senators than for the opposition to swing any of the President's "core" votes to its side.

But Santiago's calculation is flawed. It assumes that the votes given to Pimentel would translate into a vote aligned behind the President. The calculation is static and ignores the volatility of political alignments springing from a crisis in which loyalties shift rapidly from day to day. The issues over Drilon's replacement are different from the issues of impeachment. Some of those who voted for Pimentel instead of for Sen. Teofisto Guingona, nominated by Drilon, did so for reasons (some personal) that had little to do with impeachment. The 13 who voted for Pimentel include the "hard core" eight -- Santiago, Ople, Tatad, Aquino-Oreta, Sotto III, John Osmeqa, Enrile and Honasan. But Pimentel would like us to believe he is fiercely independent, and Coseteng, Jaworski and Revilla are at best uncertain. Coseteng, Jaworski and Revilla have defected from LAMP.

The impeachment trial is a supreme issue, whose historical import (this is the first time a Filipino President stands trial on impeachment charges), impinges heavily in the minds of the senators as they weigh the evidence and the authority of a heavily damaged presidency to govern after the trial -- regardless of whether he is acquitted or convicted. They are accountable to public opinion whose weight will bear on them heavily. The trial is not over an ordinary policy issue. It is about the removal of a venal presidency and about the future of democracy. Considerations of public interest and the future of this country plunging into an economic recession are critical factors that challenge the patriotism and statesmanship of the senators.

The fatal flaw of this reductionist and static calculation is that it ignores the role of historical flukes (or the unexpected catalysts) that have changed the course of Philippine history. A historical fluke -- the betrayal of the Katipunan through information obtained from sacred confession -- moved forward the Cry of Balintawak (or Pugad Lawin) igniting the first people's revolution in Asia.

A fluke, the crude assassination of Benigno Aquino Jr., set in motion the train of events that accelerated the fall of Ferdinand Marcos. A fluke, the military mutiny of Enrile and Gen. Fidel Ramos, sparked the military defections from Marcos and the avalanche of people power at Edsa. A fluke, the exposi of Singson, was the catalyst that sparked the acceleration of public unrest over Estrada's corruption. Another fluke, composed of the defections of Drilon and legislators from LAMP, the defection from the Cabinet and the breakthrough of the impeachment complaints engineered by former Speaker Manuel Villar in the House, changed the political complexion of the crisis of confidence plaguing Estrada.

These flukes were unexpected events driving the tempo of change. Given the volatility of the crisis, no one can say that new flukes could break out and drastically create a turning point in the alignments over the impeachment trial in the Senate.

While no Asian leader has ever been impeached, Filipinos have done precedent-breaking actions in the past -- including the People Power Revolution that inspired similar people's uprising in Asia and Central Europe. The Philippines could be the first democracy to remove a president by impeachment. We like to make scenarios based on known facts and the predictable. But flukes tend to overturn scenarios.

-- The Philippine Daily Inquirer/Asia News Network