*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD, DM
For more than two decades of teaching in the public safety directorial staff course, I have encountered countless situations where I had to decide whether to apply a rule strictly or to understand the reason behind it.
I vividly remember one particular incident.
A police colonel student arrived almost fifteen minutes late for my class. The classroom rule was clear: once the lecture had begun, latecomers were generally not allowed to enter. As a professor, I have always believed in discipline. Rules create order, fairness, and mutual respect inside the classroom.
Habang papalapit ang estudyante sa pintuan, handa na sana akong ipatupad ang rule.
Then one of his classmates quietly approached me and whispered, “Sir, naaksidente po ang sinasakyan niya. Huminto muna siya para tulungan ang isang matandang nasugatan bago siya pumasok.”
For a few seconds, I simply stood there.
Then I asked myself a question that has stayed with me throughout my career as an educator.
Why was the rule created in the first place?
Was it created to punish someone who chose compassion over convenience?
Or was it created to teach discipline and responsibility?
I allowed him to enter the classroom.
Did I abandon the rule?
I don’t think so.
In fact, I believe I honored the very purpose for which the rule existed.
That experience taught me something I have carried not only inside the classroom but also in my study of governance and constitutional law: rules are indispensable, but they should never be separated from the objective they are meant to accomplish.
That lesson immediately came to mind when Senator Tito Sotto remarked that “rules are not sacrosanct.”
Almost instantly, the statement drew criticism. Marami ang nagsabing tila binabale-wala niya ang rules ng impeachment court. Others interpreted the statement as though he was encouraging the Senate to ignore its own procedures.
But I honestly believe many people focused on the words without examining the constitutional principle behind them.
In my reading, Senator Sotto was not saying that rules are unimportant.
He was not saying that the Senate may disregard procedures whenever it wishes.
Nor was he suggesting that the Constitution itself may be ignored.
Rather, I believe he wanted the public to understand something much deeper.
Rules should never be mistaken for the ultimate objective of an impeachment proceeding.
They are essential.
They deserve respect.
But they are not the destination.
They are the means through which the constitutional objective is achieved.
Sometimes, when procedural rules are applied too literally or too rigidly, they may unintentionally frustrate the very purpose for which they were created.
As a professor, I always remind my students that education is not about memorizing classroom rules. Education is about learning. If the strict application of a classroom rule begins to defeat learning itself, then every responsible educator must pause and ask whether the rule is still serving its intended purpose.
Sa aking palagay, ito rin ang nais ipaunawa ni Senator Tito Sotto tungkol sa impeachment.
The Constitution did not establish impeachment merely to determine who has the better lawyers, who can deliver the most eloquent arguments, or who can prevail through procedural maneuvering alone.
Its higher constitutional purpose is accountability.
Its mission is to uncover the truth behind serious allegations against a high public official while ensuring that the respondent receives full due process.
Ultimately, impeachment exists because the Filipino people deserve to know the truth.
Kapag ang buong usapan ay umiikot na lamang sa procedural technicalities, parliamentary objections, motions, at iba’t ibang interpretasyon ng procedural rules, may panganib na matabunan ang pinakamahalagang tanong.
Ano ba talaga ang nangyari?
May pananagutan ba o wala?
Those are the questions the public is waiting to hear answered.
The Filipino people do not watch an impeachment trial merely to witness procedural debates among lawyers and senators. They watch because they expect transparency. They expect evidence to be presented. They expect facts to be examined. They expect accountability to be determined through a fair constitutional process.
Of course, due process must never be sacrificed. Procedural safeguards exist for a reason. They protect the rights of every respondent and preserve the legitimacy of the proceedings.
But due process should never be confused with procedural rigidity.
There is an important constitutional difference.
Procedural rules are designed to facilitate the search for truth—not to become the truth themselves.
They are intended to assist justice—not replace justice.
They are meant to guide accountability—not overshadow it.
Sa aking pagkakaunawa, ito ang mas malalim na mensahe ni Senator Tito Sotto.
Hindi niya sinasabing huwag sundin ang rules.
Ang sinasabi niya ay huwag nating gawing mas mahalaga ang procedure kaysa sa layunin ng impeachment.
The Constitution is sacrosanct.
Due process is sacrosanct.
Fundamental rights are sacrosanct.
But procedural rules are different.
They are created by constitutional institutions to help those institutions faithfully perform their constitutional responsibilities. Like all procedural frameworks, they may be interpreted, refined, or amended through lawful processes, provided they remain faithful to the Constitution.
There is a profound difference between saying “rules do not matter” and saying “rules are not sacrosanct.”
The first invites arbitrariness.
The second recognizes that procedure must always remain the servant of justice—not its master.
Perhaps this is what Senator Tito Sotto intended to remind the nation.
The real success of an impeachment trial should not be measured solely by how perfectly every procedural rule was followed. It should also be measured by whether the proceedings fulfilled their constitutional purpose: to give both sides a fair hearing, to present the evidence openly, to allow the Filipino people to understand the truth, and ultimately to determine where accountability, if any, truly lies.
Because when procedure becomes the entire conversation, the truth risks becoming a mere footnote.
And when truth is buried beneath endless technical debates, justice itself becomes more difficult for the people to see.
That, perhaps, is the deeper meaning behind Senator Tito Sotto’s statement.
Ang mga patakaran or rules ay kailangan.
Pero hindi dapat maging super absolute o rigid ng mga rules na 'yan, to the point na nawawalan na ng saysay ang mismong constitutional purpose kung bakit sila ginawa.
#DJOT
*****************************************
_______________________________________
Dear friends,
*About the author:
