THE nation will long remember and forever be grateful for the service that Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile is doing for his people in the twilight of his career.  Many thoughtful media analysts and commentators have objected, and not without good reason, to the growing propensity of reporters covering the impeachment trial to score the day-by-day tussles as if they were scoring a boxing match between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr.  I beg their indulgence just this time to pitch a good word for seniot citizens: If the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona were a boxing match, the round-by-round scorecard would so far read, 4-0, for Enrile.

The Senate President is a strapping 87 years old.  He is guiding the impeachment court through murky legal waters.  But in the process he is ruling firmly and fairly and showing all of us who are decades younger the wisdom of his experience as he navigates through a turbulent episode in our history as a  nation.

Enrile is also demonstrating remarkably well how mastery of the legislative process, good preparation,  and legal scholarship can all lead to an efficient and impartial trial when placed in the hands of a leader of his caliber.

Shortly before the holiday recess, Enrile described how he would prepare for his historic duty of presiding at the trial of the first Chief Justice ever to be impeached in this country.

“I will prepare as I have always done in preparing for any case I handle,” said theveteran lawyer who carved a name for himself in private practice before joining government service.  “I read, I do not watch television or (listen to) the radio,” he said, stressing the value to the senator-judges of resisting being influenced by outside factors.

He was speaking of personal discipline, but the other senators could have taken his wise counsel just as well as they search for guideposts in doing their work as judges fairly and impartially.  The oath they took as impeachment judges said, to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.”

Model public servant

Enrile is apparently aware that as he does what is probably the crowning glory in almost half a century of a checkered political career, he is also duty bound not only to steer the trial to completion but also to serve as a model for achieving justice fairly and objectively.

He has done this since the first day of trial when he laid down the basic constitutional principles governing the trial.  First he asserted the supremacy of the Senate, saying that this power was vested by the people solely on the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.

“The task at hand is a constitutional mandate and duty which we have no discretion to postpone or evade. As jurors, it is our obligation and responsibility to closely and diligently examine the evidence and the facts to be presented before us, to determine whether such evidence and facts sufficiently and convincingly support the charges, and ultimately, to decide the fate of no less than the Chief Justice of the Highest Court of the land, and the head of a co-equal branch of our government,” Enrile said in his opening statement.

‘Unique'

“The Constitution recognizes a distinct class of public officers, elected or appointed, that include the President, the Vice President, the members of the Supreme Court, the members of Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman, who, unlike the rest of the public officials in various positions in government, may only be removed from office through the process of impeachment. These men and women in the highest and most sensitive echelons of government may only be removed upon conviction for culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes and betrayal of public trust .

“Hence, by its very nature, the work we are about to do is unique. It is a rendition of justice outside our traditional judicial system and it carries with it a grave and serious responsibility.”

Then Enrile defined the rules that would guide the trial:

“While it has often been said that, by and large, the trial in an impeachment case is political in nature, nonetheless, such is neither an excuse nor a license for us to ignore and abandon our solemn and higher obligation and responsibility as a body of jurors to see to it that the Bill of Rights are observed and that justice is served, and to conduct the trial with impartiality and fairness, to hear the case with a clear and open mind, to weigh carefully in the scale the evidence against the respondent, and to render to him a just verdict based on no other consideration than our Constitution and laws, the facts presented to us, and our individual moral conviction.”

'Sense of justice'

Enrile showed an acute awareness of the historical task they were about to perform when he said:

“Although the ostensible respondent in the trial before us is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, we cannot escape the reality that, in a larger sense, the conduct of this trial and its outcome will necessarily have a serious impact on the entire nation. Its success or failure to achieve the purpose for which the Constitution has provided this mechanism as part of our system of checks and balances and of public accountability, may spell the success or failure of our democratic institutions, the strengthening or weakening of our sense of justice as a people, our stability or disintegration as a nation, and the triumph or demise of the rule of law in our land.”

Then realozing perhaps that the task was going to tax even judges several decades younger, Enrile concluded:

“May God provide us with sufficient physical strength, intellectual keenness, and moral courage to render justice in the case before us on the basis of the law, our honest perception and understanding of the facts, and in accordance with the dictates of our individual conscience.”

Senior citizens can all take pride in what Enrile is doing in the twilight of his career.