STALLS IMPEACH TRIAL; JPE ADMITS SENATE PUT IN QUANDARY
[PHOTO
- IMPEACH TRIAL SENATE JUDGES]
MANILA, JANUARY 26, 2012 (INQUIRER)
By Cathy C. Yamsuan, Christian V. Esguerra - A "vaguely" written and formulated
accusation that Chief Justice Renato Corona had amassed ill-gotten wealth put
the Senate impeachment court in a "quandary" Tuesday on whether to admit the
prosecution evidence.
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the presiding officer, noted that Article
2 of the impeachment complaint had been "expanded" by the prosecution from its
original allegation that Corona committed culpable violation of the Constitution
and betrayed the public trust by supposedly failing to disclose his statements
of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs).
"We are at a quandary as to how to treat this article," Enrile told
Representative Niel Tupas Jr., the lead prosecutor.
The unresolved objection of the defense against evidence on alleged
ill-gotten wealth embodied in Article 2 set off yet another exchange with the
prosecution on the fifth day of the impeachment trial.
Defense counsels on Tuesday filed a motion seeking to prevent Internal
Revenue Commissioner Kim Jacinto-Henares from testifying in the impeachment
court and producing the income tax returns (ITRs) of Corona and his family.
"The presentation of the ITRs and tax certificates of the Corona children
should not be allowed for being without basis, irrelevant, and immaterial to
these proceedings," Corona's lawyers said in a six-page motion.
"The testimony of Commissioner Henares on the ITRs and tax certificates of
the Corona children, as well as the presentation thereof, are therefore
irrelevant and immaterial to the issue of whether or not CJ Corona failed to
disclose his SALN to the public," they stressed.
New charges
In a 21-page memorandum submitted yesterday, the defense led by
former Supreme Court Associate Justice Serafin Cuevas (photo)
asked the court to prevent the prosecution from offering as evidence documents
and testimonies of properties under Corona's name.
The defense maintained that the prosecution was injecting an entirely new
charge into Article 2.
The memorandum said that the prosecution's failure to include the new
allegations in Article 2 showed the complainants' "lack of any personal
knowledge at the time they filed the verified complaint of the ultimate facts
concerning suggestions of graft and corruption and accumulation of ill-gotten
wealth."
"Complainants did not base their charges on their personal knowledge, much
less on authentic documents, at the time they filed the verified complaint," it
said.
"This now explains their desperate and belated use of this honorable court's
subpoena power to gather evidence for the very first time to prove their case.
Unfortunately, and to CJ Corona's extreme prejudice, these proceedings have
become an illegal 'fishing expedition.' This should never be allowed."
Defense lawyers asked the court to "expunge from the record any and all of
the evidence presented" by the prosecution regarding his alleged properties.
Under Article 2, he is also "suspected and accused of having accumulated
ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts
with huge deposits."
Said Corona's camp: "To allow complainants to present evidence on matters not
covered by the clear language of Article 2 will violate (his) constitutional
right to due process and to be properly informed of the charges against him."
'Mere suspicion'
"The use of particular words like 'suspected,' 'reported' and 'accused,'
without more, conveys no specific allegation of every necessary circumstance and
fact to constitute graft and corruption or accumulation of ill-gotten wealth,"
the defense argued.
"In other words, the mere suspicion that the respondent 'accumulated
ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts
with huge deposits' is insufficient."
During yesterday's hearing, Chief Prosecutor Neil Tupas
(photo) argued that charges of ill-gotten wealth had been "sufficiently
alleged" in Article 2. He cited a ruling that "the allegation is sufficient if
it contains sufficient notice of the cause of action even if the allegations may
be vague or indefinite."
"The allegation in the complaint is sufficient if it informs the respondent
of the accusations against him," he told the court. "Even the ordinary person
understands when he reads the complaint."
Enrile gave prosecutors a non-extendable deadline at 10 a.m. Wednesday to
submit their legal memorandum on the issues arising from Article 2.
Sufficiency test
Tupas also noted that Corona had addressed the issue of his alleged
ill-gotten wealth when he "flatly denied" the accusation in his official reply
to the articles of impeachment.
"It means that the Chief Justice understood that we in Congress, all 188 of
us who signed the impeachment complaint, are accusing him of amassing ill-gotten
wealth," he said in Filipino. "Using the sufficiency test, it suffices."
Cuevas said Corona should not be faulted for denying the charge even as he
maintained that it did not form part of the complaint.
"We said this should not be considered, but we also did not want to appear
rude," he said. "It is not the answer, it is not the rejoinder that determines
the existence of an impeachable offense … Why will the reply supply the
deficiency in the complaint?"
Cuevas also complained about the prosecution's releases in press conferences
of documents such as SALNs and land titles as supposed proof that Corona had
accumulated ill-gotten wealth.
He said such documents had not been offered as evidence in the impeachment
court and might even be "rejected or overruled" if they would be presented as
such.
"Yet they are feasting on them outside, saying that our client has so many
properties," he said in Filipino.
During the hearing, Tupas complained that Enrile was conducting the
proceedings "like a criminal trial." Sounding nervous, he pleaded that Enrile be
"more liberal … so the truth will come out." He said that in two hearings last
week, "rules of evidence … that should be suppletorily applied actually became
the controlling rules."
"There were at least 30 objections from the defense and the prosecution had
to reform its questions at least 20 times," Tupas said.
"I am feeling that the Senate is acting like an ordinary court but to us, the
Senate is no ordinary court. Even the prosecutors are no ordinary prosecutors.
We came with a mandate from the House of Representatives … We feel that the
strict application of technical rules has unduly restricted in the last two days
the presentation of evidence by the prosecution," he added.
"Are you suggesting we should allow misleading questions," Enrile asked not
without sarcasm. "Do you suggest we should allow hearsay evidence … That we
allow argumentative questions … That we should allow hypothetical questions …
That we allow leading questions teaching the witness what to say."
Tupas said no to all these questions and pleaded, "Just give us flexibility."
Enrile then chastised Tupas for the unpreparedness of the prosecution. Enrile
said he had assumed that the prosecutors, after delivering the articles of
impeachment on December 13, would have "assembled and marshaled" evidence for
each article.
Standard of proof
Appearing for the first time in the hearing after suffering hypertension,
Senator Miriam Santiago challenged the two parties to define the standard of
proof that must be observed in deciding the case which was another area of
conflict between the defense and prosecution panels.
"In a standard case, the standard is preponderance of evidence. In a criminal
case, the proof must be beyond reasonable doubt. I humbly submit that the
standard of proof be overwhelming preponderance of evidence," Santiago said.
Tupas replied that standard of proof should be "substantial evidence" while
Cuevas said proof must be "beyond reasonable doubt."
In simple cases of libel or malicious mischief, Cuevas said the penalty was
less than six months imprisonment.
"What more in an impeachment trial where the penalty is very severe?
Perpetual absolute disqualification from public office is practically a death
sentence! It is not temporary. I submit that proof should be beyond reasonable
doubt. Why would quantum of evidence be lesser than that of a simple case of
estafa or libel," he added.
Santiago said the "polar differences" in the answers of both counsel "can
only be resolved in caucus."
Enrile later urged the impeachment court to express its observations whether
he had indeed been overtly strict as presiding officer. He also said he was
"open" to surrendering his post "to anyone who wants to replace me."
"I am not siding with anyone in this case. I will not be an instrument of
anyone here and I will not issue a decision that would not be just," he said. "I
will not allow this court to be used. As the presiding officer, I will make sure
there will be no unjust or unreasonable system here."
Senator Alan Peter Cayetano expressed confidence in Enrile's performance but
warned against suppression of evidence.
"If we suppress evidence, it is the people who will lose. In a criminal case,
at least there is double jeopardy. Not so in an impeachment trial. All they have
to do is file (another impeachment complaint) next year and we'll do it again,"
Cayetano warned. "So if we convict or we acquit, let it be based on the merits,"
he added.
In a post-trial press conference, prosecution spokespersons assailed the
defense for turning the impeachment trial into a criminal proceeding.
"It's definitely a sad day for us because technicality prevails over merit,"
said Marikina Representative Romero Quimbo. "The defense will put every
roadblock to stop the presentation of evidence."
Defense lawyers assailed the prosecution for resorting to "mob rule."
"It appears that the prosecutors want to end this after just four days of
trial. If that's what they want to do, then why don't we just let the man stand
and hit him with stones just like what they did in the old times," said Tranquil
Salvador III.
"We cannot allow rules without having standards which could turn (the trial)
into a circus," said Karen Jimeno. "We cannot let anybody ask any question and
accuse a person without a process and a system." With
reports from Marlon Ramos and Cynthia D. Balana
FROM THE PCIJ BLOG
SALN or ill-gotten wealth: What is Article II really
about?
ARTICLE II
RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND/OR
BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT
OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES, AND NET WORTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE
1987 CONSTITUTION.
2.1. It is provided for in Art. XI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution that
"a public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often
thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his
assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the
Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and other constitutional offices,
and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration
shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law. "
2.2. Respondent failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets,
liabilities, and net worth as required by the Constitution.
2.3. It is also reported that some of the properties of Respondent are not
included in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, and net worth, in
violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act.
2.4. Respondent is likewise suspected and accused of having accumulated
ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts
with huge deposits. It has been reported that Respondent has, among others, a
300-sq. meter apartment in a posh Mega World Property development at the Fort in
Taguig. Has he reported this, as he is constitutionally-required under Art. XI,
Sec. 17 of the Constitution in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net
Worth (SALN)? Is this acquisition sustained and duly supported by his income as
a public official? Since his assumption as Associate and subsequently, Chief
Justice, has he complied with this duty of public disclosure?
A question of ultimate facts?
Is Article II of the impeachment complaint simply about the failure to
disclose the statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth, or is it also
about ill-gotten wealth?
Defense and prosecution counsels battled over this seemingly trivial but in
truth, crucial point as prosecutors hope to prove that Supreme Court Chief
Justice Renato Corona of amassing ill-gotten wealth.
Defense counsels have repeatedly question this tactic, claiming that
prosecutors would need to throw back the impeachment complaint to the House of
Representatives if they intend to argue that Corona amassed ill-gotten wealth.
"These are allegations of ultimate facts," said prosecutor Niel Tupas. "It
should be taken together with paragraphs contained in Article II, kasama na run
ang paragraphs sa ill-gotten wealth. "
"The respondent understood that we are accusing him of ill-gotten wealth,"
Tupas added. "The allegation of non-disclosure with the allegation of ill-gotten
wealth should be taken together."
Lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas in turn said that Article II clearly
alleged failure to make public the SALN. A sub-provision of the Article II only
stated that the Chief Justice was reported to have acquired ill-gotten wealth.
Cuevas said this was not technically a charge in the impeachment complaint.
"This is all conjectural and speculative," Cuevas said. "This does not amount
to a concrete statement of fact."
Chief News Editor: Sol Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2012 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE
All
rights reserved
PHILIPPINE
HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
phno-digest@yahoogroups.com
phno-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
