Undue Process of Law

Since the Supreme Court ruled last year on the parameters defining the impeachment process against VP Sara, the phrase Due Process of Law was front and center in our daily conversation. It was demanded by our Supreme Court to be observed by the House of Representatives (HOR), such that when the time was rife and ripe, it was recently complied with by the HOR Justice Committee — granting the VP the right to be informed of the prosecution charges and the opportunity to be heard on her defenses.  But lo and behold, the VP was won’t to take advantage of the SC dictum, won after so much effort and fanfare, for her to just ultimately brush aside her chance to explain with a hand wave message —  “Thanks, but no thanks” response. Shakespeare would have remarked quite rightly — “It was a case of much ado about nothing.” The beneficiary did not accept and made use of a hard won fight the SC granted to the camp of the impeached official. What does due process consist of anyway?  Simply stated — It is the right to be heard, before losing life, liberty or property, before a fair and impartial judge, who is not biased in favor of any of the opposing parties.  Classically, due process thunders the adage – “One must not be the Judge of his own cause (or case).” To do so would be unfair, for one cannot rule against one’s own self.

This Lenten season, it is interesting to see if there was a concept of Due Process during the trial of our Redeemer. First off, Governor Pilate was reported to have asked the pleasure of the crowd. In all probability, he already sensed where they would veer towards. To give the mob free hand to determine the fate of the Truth in person was unfair. It wasn’t a proper jury at all. The sentence was a foregone conclusion. The washing of Pilate’s hands was just theatrics. But come to think of it, without an unfair judgment, could we have been redeemed? Hayss, naging homily na yata. A blessed Holy Week to one and all. Love you, bye.