"Comedy of Errors" in both chambers of Congress

One of William Shakespeare's plays called "The Comedy of Errors" has become so popular the title itself became an idiomatic expression, showing an event or series of events made ridiculous by too many mistakes, errors, and wrong moves.

What’s happening between the House of Representatives and the Senate these last six months is fast evolving into a Comedy of Errors exacerbated by the motives behind many of the characters' words, actions, and decisions.

And so, Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus. Mistake in One, Mistake in All. The results of a process filled with errors could be nothing more than erroneous. As a Filipino citizen, member of civil society, taxpayer, lawyer, and as a voter, I call senators and congressmen for the many errors they have committed.

First error, and grandmother of all other errors, by the way they behaved and still behaving, acted and still acting, and have spoken and still speaking, it’s apparent most members of both Houses of Congress participated in impeachment without reading and comprehending the letter and the spirit of the 1987 Constitution, specifically Article XI on the Accountability of Public Officers.

Second error, the House erred in not acting with speed on the first three impeachment charges filed before the Lower House and in having waited for a number of months for the fourth articles only to rush it and filed the same at the eleventh hour at almost five o' clock of the last Senate session day. The first offense against the term "forthwith" was obviously committed by the House.

Third error, it was a mistake on the part of the Senate to have waited from February to June, and even failed to refer the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate Committee on Rules. The Senate violated the "forthwith" order to proceed to trial. The election campaign wasn’t a justifying or exempting circumstance to exculpate the Senate from the sin of omission. It was a betrayal of public trust for which they should be held accountable.

Fourth error, the obvious acts of the Senate president and his fellow senators in "dribbling" the articles was a palpable aid and comfort to the impeached vice president. The fifth error was the motion to dismiss which was amended by the sixth error which was the so-called motion remand and the 18 votes approving it didn’t cure the intrinsic unconstitutionality of such a travesty.

The seventh error was the strange, baseless requirement imposed by the Senate on the House to certify that the latter has complied with the Constitution on the manner and frequency of the filing of impeachment charges. This isn’t allowed by the Constitution. The mandate of the fundamental law to the Senate is to forthwith proceed with the trial and not dilly-dally with procedural inanities and interlocutory incongruities. Such fixations turned out to be nothing but dilatory no matter how the Senate and its president try to justify it.

The eighth error was committed by the House in filing a request for clarification, instead of issuing the certification, even if the same was unnecessary, if only to expedite the proceedings. But all these subsequent errors were proximately caused by the fifth error which was a motion to dismiss filed by one of the judges. How can such a judge remain faithful to his responsibility as magistrate if he has a motion that he himself will help resolve. That was a conflict of interest.

The ninth error was committed by Senator-judges Marcos and Padilla, among others, in going abroad together with the impeached vice president, and in making many partisan statements that betrayed their respective obligation to be non-partisan and be judicious and objective in the performance of their sworn duties as judges.

The tenth error was the series of press conferences where both Houses and their respective members expressed their opinions on the merits of the case. They violated the cardinal rule on "sub judice" and were exacerbated by the series of radio and TV interviews they made. They have telegraphed their opinions which therefore revealed that they have formed a pre-judgment of the case even before they heard the evidence.

I thus submit that there is already a mistrial even before the trial proper has begun. This is the most disorderly proceeding that confuses Law students, lawyers, and even legal luminaries. If students of Law are bewildered, perplexed and confused, how much more the ordinary "hoi polloi" under the mango tree?