BY leading the audacious cavalry charge himself to impeach Chief Justice Renato Corona, President Aquino may have unwittingly let loose a chain of events that may have fatally flawed the impeachment process itself.

The opening barrage was launched by the President in a string of well-publicized speeches that publicly criticized Mr. Corona. The unkindest cut of all was delivered right in Mr. Corona's face by the President in a summit conference attended by the country's top jurists and legal luminaries.

In recounting the chain of events that led to the President's call to impeach Mr. Corona, commentators could not help speculating that what triggered the public onslaught must have been the unanimous Supreme Court decision (14-0) that resolved the decades-long, blood-splattered Hacienda Luisita case.

In that landmark case, the Court ruled that the 1987 constitutional mandate must be followed to distribute the sprawling Cojuangco-Aquino estate among the tenant-farmers who till the soil.  But the case didn't end there.

'Just compensation'

The Court still has to resolve the contentious issue of how much must be the “just compensation” of the Cojungco-Aquino clan.

In a motion for reconsideration filed by the Hacienda before the Court, the amount of P10 billion has been mentioned.  Clearly, the Supreme Court stands at the center of the monetary resolution of the case.  Its composition will figure prominently in how this peso value will be resolved.

Equally critical to the agrarian reform program will be the assistance that the Department of Agrarian Reform will extend to the farmers.  Without government help in making the smaller parcels of land economically viable, the program will fail.

Simply put, the small farmers will need all the help they can get in agricultural loans, irrigation, seedlings, and getting their harvests to market at the best possible price.  This would need massive infrastructure support in warehousing, transportation, and an extensive network of farm-to-market roads.

Budget cuts

Curiously, DAR employees have complained that their operating budgets have been cut and the department is preparing to shut down in a few years, raising suspicions that the government is not really earnestly pursuing helping the farmers, legal-aid lawyer Christian S. Monsod told an anti-poverty summit in December.

In a reply to the Hacienda motion for reconsideration, the farmers' group alleged that the Cojuangco-Aquino families were conspiring to get Mr. Corona and other justices out of the Court by impeachment.

In a flood of Facebook and Twitter comments following the President's public assaults on Mr. Corona, the netizens alleged that the Hacienda ruling was the   motive for impeaching the Chief Justice.

'Blitzkrieg'

The “blitzkrieg” manner with which the President's allies in the House of Representatives rushed the impeachment complaint to the Senate -- done in five hours from Powerpoint presentation to signing -- raised objections from several congressmen that the constitutional requirement of “sufficiency in form and substance” may have been omitted.

The deputy lead prosecutor in the impeachment trial, Rep. Rodolfo Farinas, has admitted in open court that he himself had no time to sign the complaint because of the speed.  He also said the articles of impeachment could have been written better.

The hasty preparation of the complaint and the apparent lack of evidence has stalled the Senate trial over the past four weeks.  The defense panel has also gone to the Supreme Court for relief in a certiorari pleading seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the trial, alleging grave abuse of discretion in excess of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has granted a TRO to PS Bank which sought relief from a Senate subpoena seeking access to foreign currency bank accounts of Mr. Corona.

Mystery lady

A parallel controversy has also erupted over the issuance of Senate subpoenas for bank accounts on the strength of a photocopied bank statement mysteriously handed over to House prosecutors by a “small lady.”

The central bank has started an investigation into this apparent breach of bank secrecy laws, fearing  possible bank runs and other financial problems  that may arise.

Legal questions have also been raised over the admissibility of evidence arising from a patently criminal act violating banking laws.

Tricky issues

The Senate will meet in executive session on Monday to resolve these and other legal issues surrounding the trial with the issuance of the Supreme Court TRO.

At the close of its last hearing Thursday, the senator-judges were locked in contentious debates over a host of legal and constitutional issues bearing on the substance and procedure of the trial.

Things are likely to get more complicated in the coming days with no quick resolution yet in sight.