ENRILE-DAVIDE MYSTIQUE
MANILA, JANUARY
20,
2012 (INQUIRER) By Cathy C. Yamsuan, Marlon
Ramos - Defense lawyers on Thursday expressed concern that some senators were
acting as "substitutes" for fumbling House prosecutors in the impeachment trial
of Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Serafin Cuevas, Corona's lead counsel, lamented how Senator Franklin
Drilon (photo) saved the day for the prosecution and compelled Enriqueta
Vidal, the Supreme Court clerk of court, to release to the impeachment court the
chief magistrate's statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) without
authorization from the high tribunal.
According to Cuevas, Drilon's actions aided the House panel in securing
Corona's SALNs, which were later marked as part of the prosecution evidence.
"If a senator is asking a question, we cannot raise an objection even if we
feel that the senator-judge was already acting as a prosecutor. We will be
overruled. I hope we will have that right or privilege to object." he said.
Seek relief from SC?
Asked if he was alarmed by Drilon's behavior, he said: "Of course, I'm just
human. But we still recognize their authority because they are the judges."
The defense panel may have to seek relief from the high tribunal "if we feel
that their actions are already constitutive of grave abuse of discretion," said
the former Supreme Court associate justice.
"They (senators) are judges. They shall remain impartial and shall decide on
the basis of the Constitution and the law," Cuevas said in a news briefing after
the trial on Wednesday night.
"If only they let the prosecution ask questions, those documents (SALNs)
would not have been disclosed. But Drilon intervened. I tried to object, but
they said it cannot be done so I withdrew my objection," he said in Filipino.
Vidal, who initially told the court that she did not bring Corona's SALNs
with her, reluctantly turned over copies of Corona's SALN under questioning by
Drilon, one of President Benigno Aquino III's staunchest allies in the ruling
Liberal Party.
SALNs of the justices are required to be filed with the clerk of court under
a 1989 resolution of the high tribunal and can only be released by an en banc
court ruling to protect them from harassment.
Drilon's intervention saved the presentation of private prosecutor Mario
Bautista, who failed to ask Vidal if she had the documents in her possession.
Jose Roy III, another defense lawyer, noted that the House panel was able to
"get what it wanted without having to do anything."
"The way the litigation is going, it seems we have more opponents than what
appear on the tables. While we were successful in the defense of our client, we
didn't know that there will be substitutes who were going to come in and play.
But that's just the way it is."
"While you don't agree with some of their actions, you have to go and unless
it is very clear that they are already trampling on our rights, then that's the
right time (to seek relief from the court)," he said.
Cuevas said Corona's legal team was discussing the possibility of bringing
its concern to the Supreme Court if it becomes more apparent that some senators
are favoring the prosecution panel.
The 83-year-old lawyer shrugged off suggestions that a decision to seek legal
remedies would delay the proceedings, arguing that lawyers were obligated to
ensure the best legal action for their client.
"We are prepared for this eventuality … We will invoke our right to get a
relief from the Supreme Court. Where else can we go? That is the only recourse
left on our table … We are merely abiding by the dictates of the Constitution,"
Cuevas explained.
What's your problem?
Former Senator Francisco Tatad said he approached Drilon during a break in
the proceedings on Thursday to express concern about his observation that the
senator was "doing a job" but was "beginning to sound like (he is) a member of
the prosecution."
Tatad told reporters Drilon snapped back at him, "Why, what's your problem?
You disqualify me! Disqualify me!"
Tatad said Drilon told him to "sit with them in the defense panel."
"I'm not here to be part of either prosecution or defense panel. I'm here to
write a book on the impeachment. This would be my second book on impeachment,"
said Tatad, who wrote the book, "The Impeachment of President Joseph Ejercito
Estrada" several months after his ouster in 2001.
Tatad, who was Senate majority leader when Drilon was Senate President, said
he told the senator-judge "that I'm interested in credibility of the impeachment
process."
Tatad said he also told Drilon that he only expressed concern "as a friend
(kaibigan tayo), that's why I talked to him."
"He was still looking angry when I left," Tatad recalled.
Asked for comment, Drilon told reporters, "That's small stuff. Let's just
talk about the impeachment."
Passion For Reason: Enrile and the Davide mystique
By: Raul C. Pangalangan Philippine Daily Inquirer9:13 pm | Thursday,
January 19th, 2012
If there was a clear winner in the opening skirmishes of the impeachment
trial, it was neither the prosecution nor the defense. It was Senate President
Juan Ponce Enrile and, by extension, the Senate as an institution.
There is nothing surprising here. Remember that during the Erap
impeachment trial more than a decade ago, it was then Chief Justice Hilario
G. Davide Jr (photo) who presided (as the Constitution requires when it is
the President who is on the dock). In the public mind, Davide came to embody the
law in its majesty, the quintessential magistrate which, in the Pinoy
imagination, made him a statesman. At a UP forum during that trial, university
president Francisco Nemenzo Jr. said that if elections were held then, people
would choose Davide as president.
For Enrile, his jurisdictional and evidentiary rulings were picture-perfect
for the magisterial stance. On Day 1, he ruled for the prosecution and
junked the Corona camp's request to second-guess the validity of the articles of
impeachment. On Day 2, he ruled for the defense and blocked the
prosecution's plea to compel Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and his family to
testify. On Day 3, he tried to steer a solomonic middle ground, so that
the Senate can compel the production of the Chief Justice's statement of assets,
liabilities and net worth (SALN) without staring down the Supreme Court which
has shielded the justices' SALNs.
Under the Senate's impeachment rules, Enrile could've done a Pontius Pilate
and called for a vote on these issues, thus sharing the glory or ignominy with
his colleagues. But he didn't. Instead he made the call, and put his name and
stature on the line should his colleagues vote to override him.
That almost happened on Day 2, when his ruling recognizing the Coronas'
testimonial immunities was challenged by some senators, and with good reason.
That's because both sides of the debate can invoke equally viable doctrinal
grounds. The Senate put it to a vote, and eventually affirmed Enrile's ruling.
On Day 3, the Senate seemed too deferential to the Supreme Court's
non-disclosure of the justices' SALNs. In doing so, the Court had flouted both
the Constitution and the Salonga Law (namely, the Code of Ethics for Public
Officers). What's the point of SALNs if you file them with your subaltern, who
can't show them to others except with your permission? Plainly stated, what's
the use of SALNs if nobody else can see them? And how dare the high court exempt
itself from an anti-corruption command directed to every public official?
Finally, the Supreme Court's rule on non-disclosure of SALNs is merely an
administrative, and not a judicial, act by the Court. It does not implicate the
separation of powers as highly as some senators made it appear. To his credit,
Chief Justice Corona has now offered to release his SALN to the Senate.
Overall, otherwise contentious rulings were adopted by the Senate and,
apparently, accepted by the Filipino public. Come to think of it, this is
precisely the kind of deference that we ought to give to a worthy Supreme Court,
and it is so telling that a political body, the Senate, has now trumped the
Court as the fount of legitimacy. Contrast that to the year 2003 when the
impeachment of Chief Justice Davide was TRO'd and eventually TKO'd by the
Supreme Court. How things have changed.
But that only brings us to a sobering fact: Filipinos have short memories.
Davide in 2001 was the toast of the town, the Inquirer's Filipino of the Year,
and in 2002, a Ramon Magsaysay laureate for government service. In 2003, he was
impeached, saved only by the Court citing the one-year constitutional ban on a
second impeachment. The real shocker is that those congressmen had the gall to
even try. That they got so far shows that the adulation was vulnerable, the
popularity precarious, the mystique fragile.
The even more sobering thought, amid the glowing online commentary, is this:
People seem to have forgotten that, once upon a time, Juan Ponce Enrile was the
martial law administrator, jailor to thousands, many of whom vanished during
that dark night in our nation's history, whose survivors remain physically or
psychologically scarred for life.
Redemption is perpetually possible, the faith teaches. Enrile had that chance
at Edsa 1, that one brief shining moment that could have erased the stain of the
Marcosian nightmare. Yet he has since whittled away the prospect of deliverance
and, until the impeachment trial, hovered between the roles of political elder
and political survivor. Enrile's place in history should be secured not by us
forgetting his inglorious role under martial law, but by him giving us a fair
trial that would reconcile law with justice.
Perhaps the old fogies among us should recall that Edsa 1 happened 26 years
ago and Edsa 2, a good 11 years ago. The college kids today were not even born
yet at Edsa 1 and were only in grade school (approximately Grades 2-4) during
Edsa 2. I shudder when I realize that what was Current Events for me is Hekasi
(Heograpiya, Kasaysayan at Sibika) for them. We cannot blame them for their
short memories. After all, my generation lived through the anti-martial law
struggles as a life passion; their generation learned about it for the final
exams. Short memories? But isn't short-term memory precisely what is most useful
for exams?
In highly politicized cases, the trial is a theater. That has always been the
case. It is thus a perennial problem that the audience may not know the larger
saga of which the courtroom drama is just one chapter. What is different now is
that the new technologies and social networks enable that audience to speak more
loudly but not always more wisely.
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/
