Juan Miguel Zubiri, senator of the land, is done with his work as judge in the impeachment trial of Sara Duterte. Even before the trial has begun, he has already rendered a verdict. And his verdict is acquittal.
Zubiri used a metaphor to describe his prognosis of the trial that is yet to be forthcoming. The metaphor is, historically, emotion laden – witch-hunt.
He immediately followed with damage control.
“I’ll set my bias aside because we have to follow the process. There is a process under the Constitution. It cannot be changed. If we violate that, then we violate our oath of office when we say that we will defend and protect the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. We have to do what is right here.”
But he did not do what is right. He hitched his verdict of acquittal to the cart even before it could leave. Migz Zubiri has violated his oath of office.
But let us engage him on his witch-hunt theory. Human history has had a pack of witch-hunts that persist as infamous. Top of the list is the 17th century witch trials in Salem, Massachusetts, a series of hearings that prosecuted people accused of witchcraft. England’s Northamptonshire witch trials of 1612 had several men and women convicted of witchcraft. Or France’s Affair of the Poisons in 1677-1682 that began with a poison to gain possession of inheritance, to end up in a paranoia of finger pointing.
If Zubiri says the Sara impeachment trial is a witch-hunt, who’s the witch? See, Migz, there is none, unless you are alluding to her as one. Because there is nothing here about witches, witchcraft, spells, witch hunters, witch torture and witch executions.
Boomerang aside, Zubiri of course meant it as a metaphor. Which makes his statement the more incriminating. Zubiri may be pleased with James Morone’s definition in Conspiracies and American Democracy, that “What makes a witch-hunt is not the witches. Rather, it is the hunters’ willingness to toss aside the normal rules of justice.”
The modern-day context of witch-hunt refers to an irrational search for alleged offenders. The best example of that was Rodrigo Duterte’s public ostracism of Leila de Lima. He accused her of coddling drug traders and used drug money to fund her senatorial campaign. All allegations Duterte’s lieutenants portrayed De Lima to be were completely overturned by the three trial courts that pronounced her acquittal.
Duterte even tried to rig the court by putting in a biased judge who had conflicts of interest. The judge had to inhibit after he was exposed for what he was.
All the criminal charges against De Lima were bogus. Unfortunately, Migz, the same cannot be said of the charges against Sara Duterte. Four of her subalterns (Osias, Catalan, Mercado and Poa) had openly testified of regularly receiving bribe envelopes from her. You do not find that anomalous, senator? These were testimonies made under oath, not imaginations from thin air.
N.B. Poa is listed as one of her defense lawyers. How can that be? That is conflict of interest. He will defend his own testimony in the House that he also received bribe envelopes?
Both Sara’s DepEd and OVP disbursing officers (Edward Fajarda, Gina Acosta) testified that her confidential funds were handed over to two military officers attached to her office. Meaning, the money never reached the supposed “informants” (Mary Grace Piattos et al). Fajarda and Acosta had no idea how the funds were used.
You do not find that anomalous, senator? Why not? Do you also do such anomaly under your Senate office? Just asking, because it puzzles the brain that a legislator like you is not alarmed by such corruption.
Sara paid P1.45M each for 34 safehouses in only 11 days, according to acknowledgement receipts she submitted to the Commission on Audit. What kind of mathematics is that? That is what an impeachment court must find out because these are genuine paper trails. You do not find that anomalous, senator? Why not?
Where in the world can one find a safehouse rental of P1.45M for only 11 days? Not even your family estate at Valle Escondida in Maramag, Bukidnon is worth that in 11 days.
In the House, Sara openly defied a perfectly legal and valid legislative inquiry into the use of her budget. These were government funds and yet she shamelessly refused to be accounted for. What kind of public servant is that?
Openly and without inhibitions, she intimated her assassination plan for the president, the first lady and the speaker of the House. No joke, no joke, senator.
Shall we just remain mystified by your outré pronouncement? Your Senate has been in that habit the moment you first met as an impeachment court. Do you know what people have been saying of your Senate? That you are hoodlums in robes.
What exactly then is the political logic of your witch-hunt thesis? Is it probably this – that you have a dynasty to protect for power perpetuation? Last elections, your wife Audrey Zubiri, who has never been in politics all her life, won the 3rd congressional district seat of Bukidnon. Aside from your dynastic origins, you have established your own nuclear family as a dynasty. It really is good business, isn’t it?
If you vote to convict Sara, will your dynasty truly be doomed? Like many transactional politicians, you stand on the wrong predicate that the DDS votes still command a majority. There are a good number of DDS in Bukidnon, why even a few of the Catholic clergy there are unashamedly pro-Duterte. But are the DDS the majority?
That is the raison d’etre of your witch-hunt gaslighter that is inherently evil. And that is why you are tossing the normal rules of justice.
In the end, who is using the witch-hunt method? It is you.
The views in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of VERA Files.
