LOOSELY translated the emergent term “crowning glory” turns aptly profound, tempting a slew of creative interpretations and applications that range from an insidious relationship between two officials between major branches separated by checks and balances, to its most literal as an old and clichéd idiomatic expression relating to one’s accomplishments.

For the former, applying the impending impeachment trial of the Chief Justice, the entanglement between two who should have remained unentangled sets the pair against the people’s indignant, albeit righteous, charge to cleanse the unclean.

On the latter, one’s crowning glory is where one has achieved one’s peak. Corona de Gloria represents a crowning accomplishment resulting from one’s endeavors.

Both interpretations are suddenly relevant.

For crooks, one’s crowning glory might mean robbing the mint, or whatever comes close to the public coffers.

For those whose life-long obsession would be to climb the social pyramid, posh residences, material wealth and possessions represent their crowning glory.

For politicians, one’s crowning glory might be achieved either by clambering up the political totem pole to the presidency or through the now- patented short-cut of simply phoning for a margin of a million votes through personal calls to election officials.

For lawyers, one’s crowning glory would be to attain the position of Chief Justice. 

It is obvious where this litany is headed. Relate these to the impeachment and relevance rushes in. Unexplained wealth relates to the presidency as it likewise relates to possessions and posh residences. Relate the litany further and the presidency is suddenly linked to the Chief Justice. Round it out and the merry mix relates to one another in a pattern resembling a spider’s web.

Somewhere within that web perhaps, the biggest and most avaricious crooks of recent times have found safe refuge.

Unfortunately, in the upside-down world of Gloria Arroyo there is another feat, a dubious crowning glory no less, that serves as a stumbling block toward our pursuit of justice.

It has to do with achievements in defiling institutions upon which our democracy stands. Of our tripartite system, because the judiciary is not periodically answerable to an electorate and is thus insulated from such self-cleansing mechanisms as elections, it enjoys a relative degree of perpetuity. Defile the judiciary and you perpetually defile democracy.

Fortunately, the Constitution affords us a singular remedy—impeachment.

As we pursue that road, however, on the virtual eve of a historic impeachment trial, blockades and brickbats continue to be strewn along the straight and narrow path to justice.

Last week we analyzed where one of the most persistent involves the verification aspect of the Articles of Impeachment.

On verification and validity we noted two facets.

First, Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 4 of the 1987 Constitution says, “In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”

Sans spelling out requisite protocols, verification is assumed and signified by signatures where filing is accomplished by the House’s one-third membership. In this case two-thirds was attained denoting absolute control. That no one backtracked is itself an imprimatur.

To validate, let us seek out jurisprudence that definitively sets the degree of importance of verification.

In Bello versus Bonifacio Security, citing Ramirez versus the Court of Appeals and Altres versus Empleo, the Supreme Court has itself held that a verification process, as defined, “is a formal, (and) not a jurisdictional, requirement.” This means that in such cases where verification might be an issue, the High Court’s judgement specifies that a “court may simply order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on them and waive strict compliance with the rules.”

Note the verbiage. More important, note the crusading spirit.

Our second argument cites the respondent himself as a validating factor indicating where truth lies.

Note that the Senate becomes a legitimate impeachment court when it acquires a valid impeachment. By recognizing the jurisdiction of the Senate, the Chief Justice himself effectively provides for the Senate’s valid jurisdiction over a valid impeachment complaint.

The 11th-hour dilatory gambits that distort what jurisprudence clearly describes as a “formality” defile our collective pursuit in the same manner that those upon whom we now apply justice defiled us with their manipulation of our democratic judicial institutions.

If only to untangle such relationships, we should proceed with this impeachment in a “forthwith” manner as the Constitution literally demands.

We’ve said it before and we say it again. We have crooks to catch. In bringing them to justice, not by incarcerating them in hospital suites, but within a real jail, we might finally achieve our own crowning glory—the complete cleansing of a contaminated judiciary, long-sought yet too-often denied by formalities.