The dilemma is that if one takes side one way or the other, there are grand repercussions that may not be easily corrected.
A full-blown impeachment trial is least likely to result in the removal of CJ Corona. If Corona remains CJ, GMA will likely go scot-free. The Supreme Court will be an easily available court of resort for her. In the meantime, Corona becomes untouchable for one year because of the prohibition. PNoy and allies will be shamed and power reclaimed from them in 2013. The political balance changes and the politics of the past returns. This is rather scary.
It will work best if Corona resigns the earliest possible time but not just yet without convincing evidence from the prosecution panel. In other words, the drama has to unfold but deservingly through the hard work of the House team. Let this not happen so easily for the House. Why? My fear is that the impeachment instrument becomes very accessible and easily abused by our politicos to bully and harass a perceived obstacle. The way this was handled, it seems so easy for the House to gather the numbers they need to pressure an impeachable officer to resign without really intending to go the long haul. It's a bluff. Whoever blinks first loses.
I hope the prosecution does its job well - convincingly present evidence that shows how CJ Corona has betrayed the people's trust in him and his office. If not, we'll have to face the consequence of having another Arroyo back in the helm of power. Quite soon, don't you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment