As senator-judges, they owe it to the people not only to be impartial, independent, and honest but they should be perceived to be impartial, independent, and honest as well.”

This was the telling, if respectful, reminder that the Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines issued after some observers noted that the acts of certain senator-judges tended to favor or assist the prosecution.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines earlier expressed this sentiment when it similarly appealed to the senator-judges to exercise impartiality as they discharge their duty for the duration of the impeachment trial. 

This apprehension came about after Senator-Judge Franklin Drilon’s intense grilling of Enriqueta Vidal, the clerk of court of the Supreme Court. On the witness stand, Drilon elicited an admission from her that she had in her possession the Statements of Assets Liabilities and Net Worth of Chief Justice Renato Corona, something which the House private prosecutor failed to achieve even after he subjected the witness to a rather prolonged direct examination.

As the trial entered its third day last week, it was noted that Drilon was also instrumental in linking the name of the Chief Justice to the titles of certain properties listed in the name of Corona’s daughter.

The Iloilo senator’s conduct led some observers to say that he seemed to be doing the job of the prosecution panel. This even resulted in a mild ruckus between Drilon and former senator Francisco Tatad who apparently cautioned Drilon that he seemed to be overstepping the bounds of his duty as a senator-judge.

A similar observation was aired when Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano questioned the ruling of Presiding Senator-Judge Juan Ponce Enrile denying the prosecution’s bid to summon the family of the Chief Justice to testify in the trial.

There was also Senator-Judge Antonio Trillanes IV who said that “I intend to use political acceptability as the sole criterion to evaluate the projected outcomes” of the trial. Trillanes seems to be saying that public opinion will play a major role in making his decision, whether it be a judgment of guilt or acquittal.

But it remains to be seen how his pronouncement will square in the face of Enrile’s reiteration of adherence to the long-held doctrine with respect to the acceptance of evidence to be introduced by either the prosecution or the defense.

Enrile said thus: “We have rules so the evidence can be presented in an orderly manner. We follow ancient rules, and these rules are tested by time and used in trials all over the world. We live by these rules of evidence.”

The public must understand that the senator-judges are, first and foremost, political personalities who are sensitive to public perception and public opinion.

But even as the senator-judges must be given the benefit of the doubt in relation to their conduct in the trial, every member of the Impeachment Court must avoid being perceived as favoring one side or the other as they discharge their duty in this historic event. They are called upon to maintain the highest degree of cold neutrality, lest any miscalculation on their part could result in serious damage to the institution to which they belong.