The politics of moral leadership

150 VOTES from the 283 members of the House of Representatives was more than enough affirmation to proceed with Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez’s impeachment. The House justice committee only needed was 94 votes to be able to elevate the case for deliberations in a plenary session and for a possible trial in the Senate.
This was announced by Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., who is also the chair of the House justice committee and who will lead the 11-member prosecuting team “if and when the impeachment case is sent to the Senate for trial.”
A day before the hearing, Pres. Aquino rounded up the House members of the Liberal Party (LP) to invoke “the constitutional mandate of the legislators to impeach a constitutional officer based on probable cause.”
Many perceived his action as unethical and as a violation of the law on separation of powers. Presidential spokersperson Edwin Lacierda reasoned that “the call for good governance is a primary concern of the government so we would like to see that this call is carried through,” adding that the president only has five years to realize his goals for the country.
According to Lacierda, it was Pres. Aquino’s “moral leadership in determining the course for good governance” which has influenced members of the House to vote for the Ombudsman’s impeachment and that the decision was determined “based on the appreciation of the allegations on the complaint.”
Were they marching orders? Majority Leader Rep. Neptali Gonzales II explained that it was the LP lawmakers who made the decision to adopt a party stand on the impeachment complaints. He said the party needed to take a position on the issue, because “the fight against graft and corruption would become meaningless if the person at the helm (the Ombudsman) can no longer be trusted.”
Gonzales also emphasized that the President did not directly discuss the impeachment against the Ombudsman, but that he is “very much concerned about putting the party towards the right direction.” He finds nothing wrong with a party adopting a stand on an impeachment since it is “a political process and a political act.”
The House of Representatives currently seats 81 members of the Liberal Party. Of the 150 votes, 69 were from other parties, including those from opposition party, Lakas.
While Pres. Aquino has not approached the LP members of the Senate regarding the issue(as verified by LP senators Franklin Drilon, Ralph Recto and Teofisto Guingona III), his “marching orders” did not sit well with some of the other senators.
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile said that their vote should be “a matter of conscience” and that they “cannot be covered by any imposition, suggestion or influence from anybody because [they] are performing a quasijudicial function.”
Senator Kiko Pangilinan, who is also a member of the Liberal Party, agrees with Sen. Enrile. He said that despite the chief executive’s directive to the LP, the senators will still act based on their individual convictions.
“We will decide on what we believe to be the best interest of the nation. The people will be the judge how we are to vote one way or the other. We will be judged as public officials on the basis of the reason behind our vote, the evidence that is presented. Ultimately, whether we decide for or against the case, we will have to answer to the public,” he said.
While impeachment cases may be uncommon to other governments, utilizing political influence is not a new concept. To illustrate an indirect comparison, Pres. Obama also used his political clout to lobby for the passage of his proposed Health Care Bill.  Aquino and Obama’s objectives may be entirely different, but the methods used to achieve them are essentially the same.
Perhaps it was a desperate measure on Pres. Aquino’s part – one which ensured that the impeachment case gets attention this time, without putting aside the mandate of the constitution. After all, this is already the Ombudsman’s second bout with an impeachment.
Adding to that, the plea bargain agreement with ex-comptroller Carlos Garcia (which triggered the filing of a second impeachment complaint) has already gone through so much scrutiny, enough to be deemed as “a public betrayal of trust”  by the Senate Blue Ribbon committee.
Still, nothing can be carved in stone, up until the impeachment case goes through due process – from plenary deliberations to a senate trial. Our lawmakers are now faced with the task of taking on the case to the fullest extent of the law. And as public officials, it is both their moral and political obligation to exercise their best judgment.
(www.asianjournal.com)
(LA Weekend Mar 12-15, 2011 Sec A pg. 12)