AS we bear witness to the formal impeachment trial against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona, our attention is geared not only on the merits of the case as it is presented in the proceedings of the trial but also on the impartiality of our 23 senators who have convened as a body of jurors to try and render judgment on the chief justice of the Supreme Court filed at the Senate by 188 members of the House of Representatives.  Under the present sociological and political environment of our country, one may ask: “will impartiality be possible for our 23 senator-judges knowing that an impeachment trial has been depicted as a political exercise?”

Before we start, let’s define the term. Impartiality (also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness) is a principle of justice holding that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons.  So knowing that “pakikisama” is a common Filipino trait and that political alliance is a prerequisite in the political survival of any candidate (with the 2013 national and local elections just around the corner), impartiality and independence of decision will only be possible if …

(1) One’s prejudices and biases are set aside to allow the appreciation of the phenomenon at hand.  If unchecked our prejudices and biases may cloud our judgment by “painting an image” of a reality based on our presuppositions.  So sometimes when a person has already been “demonized” in the eyes of the public through media propaganda this image may affect the way we view this individual.  Impartiality dictates that we look at this case with “fresh eyes” and allow the truth to reveal itself without our preconceived notions.  If our prejudices and biases are like the “sunglasses” we wear (whose tinted color affects how we see the things around us), then we must first learn to remove this sunglasses to allow the natural state of the phenomenon to present itself.

(2)  One is prepared to stand for the truth even if it may not be popular.  As a political exercise, an impeachment trial sometimes “feeds upon” public opinion; and in a politically charged environment, a politician would always weigh the consequences of his or her decisions based on what would be politically expedient for their careers.  Public opinion is always a precondition to a healthy democracy but when “communal outlook” is a product of propaganda masking itself as truth then such “social weather” cannot be trusted.  So when confusion arises between faulty public opinion and truth, then impartiality dictates that one sides with the truth.  Mob rule should likewise never overshadow the supremacy of truth thus one must be prepared at times to stand for the truth amidst popular decisions. 

(3)  One is prepared to sacrifice self convenience and political capital for the cause of the truth.  Acting within “party lines” (political affiliations and alliances) is deemed an act of loyalty to the party where one belongs.  Any action therefore in contrary to this coalition is “political suicide” to any aspiring candidate.  Well, that’s politics … and what would you expect.  But loyalty should never be “person” nor “party” centered.  Our allegiance and fidelity should always be for the truth.  This may sound cliché but I always believe that if the organization I belong to no longer serves the truth then it ceases to serve its purpose and therefore does not deserve my services, and if an organization does not respect the truth to which I stand for then no amount of political capital is worth my betrayal of the beliefs I hold. 

“What impartiality seems to require is not that everyone receives equal treatment, but rather that everyone be treated as an equal. While the distinction between equal treatment and treatment as equals is difficult to make out with precision, the main idea is fairly clear: treatment as equals requires that persons are not treated equally, but rather treated in accordance with what rights they possess, what legitimate claims they put forward, and, in general, with what they deserve” (Zalta, 2011).   The need to be impartial promotes our desire to be fair.  It promotes our well-being and self-respect in fighting for what is socially good, and in situations like this when such a process seeks to challenge the moral fabrics of justice and fairness in our society (through our duly elected representatives in the Senate) then the need for impartiality is a moral imperative. 

So will our Philippine senators vote with impartiality?  I pray and hope so that Senate President Juan Ponce-Enrile, Senate Pro Tempore Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III, Sen. Gringo Honasan, Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero,Sen.  Panfilo Lacson, Sen. Francis “Kiko” Panglinan, Sen. Franklin Drilon, Sen. Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel, Sen. Ralph Recto, Sen.  Alan Peter Cayetano, Sen. Edgardo Angara, Sen. Joker Arroyo. Sen. Lito Lapid, Sen. Ramon Revilla Jr. , Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, Sen. Pia Cayetano, Sen. Teofisto Guingona III, Sen. Sergio Osmeña, Sen. Ferdinand “Bong-Bong” Marcos, Sen. Manny Villar, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Sen. Loren Legarda will be guided by the “light of truth” whose virtue of impartiality takes precedence over self and political affiliations. 

For any personal comments or suggestions you may call 0917-4805585 or email me at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .