i Report Issue No. 3 2005 - Philippine Center for Investigative ...

C H A R T E R C H A N G E
driven not so much by narrow
and short-term interests but the
bigger, longer-term interests of
the nation?
The burden now is on Congress.
Whatever the result of the
impeachment, the key question
for both Houses is whether they
can rise above partisan and pecuniary
interests and the temptation
to play up to the gallery in
order resolve the issues linked
to alleged presidential wrongdoing
in a manner acceptable
to the majority of the people.
Otherwise, this latest episode
could result, if not in an outburst
of people power, then with the
already tattered credibility of
Congress in shriveled shreds.
Without a credible impeachment
process, other sectors—the
military, the Catholic Church,
and the middle class—may once
again be forced to resolve the
impasse through extraconstitutional
means. More than the
fate of the presidency, therefore,
what is at stake in the current
crisis is the credibility—and the
future—of democratic institutions,
and of democracy itself.
DAMAGED CONGRESS
The problem begins with Congress.
Since the fall of Marcos
in 1986, the history of that body
has been far from stellar. Instead,
the legislature has been a
disappointment on many counts,
including in its ability to hold
other institutions to account.
Indeed, the outcomes of previous
impeachment processes
initiated by the House raise serious
doubts about congressional
independence and efficacy.
In 2002, the compromised
Ombudsman Aniano Desierto
was let off the hook twice by
the House justice committee. The
first time involved a complaint
alleging that Desierto received a
bagful of cash from a banker and
real-estate developer who had a
pending case in his office. The
businessman wrote the justice
committee denying the charge.
The committee promptly threw
out the complaint as “sufficient
in form but not in substance”
and refused to take in any more
evidence from the complainants.
The second complaint, alleging
that the Ombudsman bungled
its investigation of the multimillion-peso
tax credit scam, was
dismissed on the ground that no
complaint could be filed against
an official within the same year.
Thanks once more to the
justice committee, Commission
on Elections commissioner
Luzviminda Tancangco, whose
many lapses are blamed for
the ill-starred modernization of
elections, also survived impeachment
in 2002, despite compelling
evidence showing she approved
an overpriced and questionable
voter-registration contract.
In both these cases, the
House was judged by civil-society
groups and the media as acting
in a scandalously self-serving
way. It was accused of clearing
powerful officials who were well
connected to the leadership of
the legislature. The acquittals
also got legislators into the good
graces of powerful executive
officials, one of them charged
with investigating graft cases
(of which congressmen have
many); the other, with running
and adjudicating elections (in
which legislators regularly and
enthusiastically take part).
Chief Justice Hilario Davide
Jr., meanwhile, was publicly seen
as the victim of a congressional
lynch mob that put together
a questionable impeachment
complaint in 2003, accusing him
of anomalies in the use of the
Judiciary Development Fund.
The charges against Davide were
viewed not so much as part of
an earnest desire to hold the
highest court to account, but as
an attempt of the faction aligned
with beer magnate Eduardo Cojuangco
Jr. to pressure the high
tribunal to rule in Cojuangco’s
favor in the long-running coconut
levy cases.
Earlier in 2003, Davide and
seven other justices had already
been the subject of an
impeachment complaint, which
questioned the constitutionality
of their action in swearing in
Arroyo as president in the heat
of Edsa 2. That complaint was
dismissed by the justice committee.
Within weeks, the committee
began hearing another
impeachment complaint against
Davide, even if it was the second
filed against the chief magistrate
in the same year.
The impeachment was allowed
to prosper, with the tacit
approval of House Speaker Jose
de Venecia. In just over a week,
the complaint already had over
80 signatures, more than enough
to forward it to the Senate for
an impeachment trial. President
Arroyo kept mum on the issue
for some time; only after protests
from business, Church, and civil
society groups, did she speak
out, urging the House to drop
the complaint and to instead
form a body to investigate
the charges. The impasse was
broken by the Supreme Court,
which ruled the complaint unconstitutional
because of the
one-year prohibition. The House
soon followed with a resolution
to dismiss the impeachment
complaint. The resolution was
signed by the majority of congressmen
led by de Venecia,
who sensed that public opinion
was turning against Congress.
Then of course there was
Estrada’s aborted impeachment
trial in 2001, when public outrage
over what it deemed was
the Senate’s partiality toward
the then president spilled out
into the streets and catalyzed
People Power 2. This time, the
blame was heaped on the Senate,
rather than on the House.
ARE HER DAYS NUMBERED?
Anti-Arroyo protesters say
the president has to go or
she will be ousted.
Several pro-Estrada senators
were accused of receiving payoffs
in the tens of millions of
pesos to ensure the president’s
acquittal.
Given all these, the skepticism
about Congress’ capacity
to carry out an impeachment
process that will produce a just
result is understandable. The
track record is simply not there.
The first obstacle Congress faces
is its own past.
A STRING OF FAILURES
The legislature’s other failures
are also to blame. Congress
fails in terms of efficiency: the
12 th Congress, which ended its
term in 2004, passed all of four
laws and could not even pass
the national budget, forcing it
to reenact the old one. Most
days, there isn’t even a quorum
in the House, making it difficult
to deliberate on laws and other
pending business. The slow burn
of the impeachment complaint in
the House committee of justice
is not unusual: the normal pace
of Congress is glacial.
Congress also fails in terms of
costs: Congress gets more expensive
every year, even as it passes
fewer laws. Already, Economic
Planning Secretary Romulo Neri
says that the stupendous sum of
P6.4 billion may be set aside for
the expenses of Congress if it is
convened as a constituent body
to amend the constitution.
More importantly, Congress
fails in terms of representation.
If there needs to be proof that
the Philippines is an oligarchy,
one only has to look at the
composition of the legislature.
As the PCIJ book The Rulemakers:
How the Wealthy and
Well-Born Dominate Congress
shows, nearly all the members
of both Houses are millionaires;
most are also part of political
families whose members have
held public office for two or
more generations. Through the
years, legislators have tended
to stay longer in office, despite
term limits, making it difficult for
new entrants, especially those
who do not come from political
families, to get into Congress.
In the House, two of every
three congressmen are part of
political clans. In the Senate,
the average assets of members
is growing every term, with an
increase by P27 million between
1998, when the 11 th Senate assumed
power, and 2001, when
the 12 th Senate took over.
Congress likewise fails in terms
of accountability: accounting and
auditing rules are honored more
in the breach in both Houses,
as shown in The Rulemakers.
Moreover, through the years,
PHILIPPINE CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM
I REPORT
21