JUDGES: SOME SENATORS BIAS
MANILA, JANUARY
24,
2012 (TRIBUNE) Sen. Franklin Drilon
yesterday denied charges of his being supposedly partial to the prosecution
panel in the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Amid calls made by a lawyers' group and the defense panel for his inhibition
from the proceedings, Drilon maintained that there is no basis to prevent him
from participating in the trial as one of the judges.
"Inhibition, based on the rules, is addressed to the person or the judge.
It's also the court that will decide if there's enough basis for the
inhibition," he stressed.
The transcript of the proceedings will bear him out that he had asked
questions that will benefit the impeachment court, not the House prosecution
panel alone, Drilon said, pointing to the case of the first witness, SC Clerk of
Court Enriqueta Vidal whom he managed to extract admission of her possession of
Corona's statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALn) at the time of
her appearance before the impeachment court.
The defense panel, he added, cannot claim that he was "biased" in questioning
Vidal as Corona's own lawyers accepted the evidence and marked his SALn when
it was presented before the court.
"How can they say that the (submission of) SALN was favorable to the
prosecution when in fact it was one of the first documents subpoenaed by the
court. That's why I'm wondering, what would be the basis of their charges to
call for my inhibition?" he asked.
The senator, during an interview, stressed that even in an ordinary court,
the judge is not prohibited from asking questions from the witness.
Malacañang, for its part, defended Drilon, saying the inhibit call was unfair
as he was just helping "ferret out the truth."
Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda urged the defense panel to confine its
work within the impeachment court where actual battle takes place.
"No, it's not fair. Number one, the call for inhibition is a personal call.
It's up to the senator to do so. Under the rules of the Senate impeachment
court, the Senate impeachment court cannot compel someone to inhibit himself.
The decision to inhibit oneself is personal so… But let me just — the framework
behind the Senate impeachment court is to ferret out the truth."
He also urged the defense lawyers to be observant in the proceedings even at
the regular courts where judges ask questions too.
"Judges in regular courts would also always ask questions. So this is not
something out of the ordinary. So I don't know why the defense has been
protesting the questions posed by Senator Drilon. Other senators have also posed
their questions, so it is something that is inherent in the right of any judge
to pose questions. What they should do is just to prepare for their presentation
of evidence when their time comes. In the meantime, they have been resorting to
technicalities and that's what the prosecution has been arguing against."
The Palace official also expressed disappointment over the way the defense
lawyers have been trying to battle it out against the prosecution.
"Again, why should the defense be complaining about it? In regular courts,
you also have judges who can ask questions. Their questions are framed in the
same manner that Senator Drilon frames his questions. It's nothing that they
have not been faced with. This is not something out of the ordinary."
Drilon is just doing his job — and helping the people decipher the truth,
Lacierda said.
"Senator Drilon and all the other senators are helping the people, are
helping this court to ferret out the truth. That is their primordial
consideration; that is their primary duty — to come out and search for the
truth." Angie M. Rosales And Fernan J. Angeles
FROM THE DAILY INQUIRER
DEFENSE WANTS DRILON OUT OF CJ
TRIAL
INQUIREER -By Christian V. Esguerra - Defense lawyers of Chief
Justice Renato Corona will seek the inhibition of Senator Franklin
Drilon, a stalwart of President Benigno Aquino III's Liberal Party, whom
they accuse of showing bias in favor of prosecutors in last week's impeachment
trial.
"What can we do if the partiality has already been exhibited to the detriment
of our client?" defense counsel Ramon Esguerra (no relation to this reporter)
said on Saturday. "When will be the proper time for us to do it (seek
inhibition)?"
On at least two occasions last week, Drilon, a lawyer, appeared to do what
prosecutors from the House of Representatives and their private counsels should
have done in the direct examination of their own witnesses.
Drilon managed to make Enriqueta Esguerra-Vidal, clerk of court of the
Supreme Court, admit that she had brought with her Corona's statements of
assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs).
The senator was also able to make Randy Rutaquio, Taguig City register of
deeds, testify that Corona had acted as an "attorney in fact" for his daughter
in the sale of a property on Oct. 21, 2008.
Under the impeachment rules, counsels cannot object to questions by
senator-judges even if the queries do not necessarily follow the Rules of Court.
No basis
"I would expect them to do that, to avail (themselves) of that remedy,"
Drilon said when asked on Sunday about the defense's plan to seek his
inhibition. "But I would not heed their call for me to inhibit. I see no basis
for that," he said.
"I don't know what they mean about me rescuing the prosecution team," he
added. "If you read the transcript, you will know exactly what happened. All I
asked was whether she (Vidal) complied with the subpoena. She was the one who
admitted that she had brought the SALNs with her."
Esguerra acknowledged that asking Drilon to inhibit might be
"counterproductive" and antagonize other senators sitting as judges in the
impeachment court.
He said that things could get "bloody" in the coming days.
Vehement objection
Just several days into the trial of Corona, his camp has resolved to go
all-out against the prosecution's move to use evidence on his alleged
unexplained wealth to help convince senators, acting as judges, to convict him
in the impeachment court.
Defense lawyers led by retired Associate Justice Serafin Cuevas have drafted
a legal memorandum vehemently objecting to additional and apparently more
serious charges that prosecutors were trying to inject into the second of the
eight articles of impeachment against Corona. Article 2 deals with Corona's
failure to disclose his SALNs to the public as required by law.
The memorandum, a draft of which was circulated among Corona's lawyers in a
meeting on Saturday afternoon, will be formally filed at the Senate impeachment
court Tuesday morning. Trial resumes in the afternoon.
Do or die
"It's do or die," Esguerra told the Philippine Daily Inquirer in an
interview.
He said the defense panel would seek sanctions on prosecutors for discussing
the merits of the case outside of the impeachment court, including uploading
copies of Corona's SALNs to the Internet without court permission.
Article 2 will be the "real battleground," Esguerra said.
The defense argued that Article 2 had been disproved after Vidal testified on
Day 2 that Corona had been submitting his SALNs to her office, in compliance
with an existing en banc resolution of the high court.
With the issue purportedly settled, the defense said introducing the issue of
ill-gotten wealth would constitute a separate allegation and violate the rights
of Corona.
Singular act
Last week, Senator Francis Escudero said an article of impeachment "must
accuse the respondent of a singular, separate act."
Before the opening of the trial, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the
presiding officer, had told reporters that the prosecution could amend the
articles of impeachment (or the charges against Corona), but would have to
return them to the House of Representatives for another round of voting.
But during the trial, Enrile told the defense that it would be premature to
settle the matter because the prosecution had yet to formally offer evidence on
Corona's alleged graft and corruption.
"Look at what is happening. They're feasting on it," Esguerra said, referring
to the introduction of evidence on Corona's alleged ill-gotten wealth. "If you
only alleged culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public
trust, why include graft and corruption? It is not deemed pleaded. That is what
we are saying. This is not deemed written."
Esguerra said his camp earlier insisted that the prosecution start with
Article 1 (Corona's alleged closeness with former President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo) because it was expecting a rather complicated Article 2.
"Even we realized that it would be bloody (madugo)," he said, referring to
the issue of including ill-gotten wealth in the alleged nondisclosure of SALNs.
Losing in public opinion
"In the bar of public opinion, we are losing because our client is being
accused in public, independent of what they are trying to prove in the trial. So
this is foul as far as we are concerned," Esguerra said.
Day 4 of the trial was spent largely on the marking of exhibits on properties
in the names of Corona and his family. In a press conference after the trial,
prosecutors said Corona's SALNs were "undervalued," citing the differences
between the declared value of certain properties and the acquisition cost.
For instance, Corona declared the value of his Bellagio penthouse in Taguig
at P6.8 million in his 2011 SALN. It was acquired for P14.5 million.
Corona's camp said there was neither misdeclaration nor undervaluation,
insisting that the amounts were "based on pertinent lawful values indicated in
the respective real estate tax declarations and no other."
Soon after Corona's SALNs were submitted to the impeachment court, copies
began circulating online. Esguerra said the copies could have come only from the
prosecution because they contained "letter" markings. Exhibits for the defense
were numbered.
"This is foul and violates the gag rule and even the gag order issued by the
Senate President," he said.
Esguerra said two members of the prosecution were seen taking pictures of the
SALNs using camera phones, while the documents were being submitted in court
last week. He said he objected and the Senate clerk of court took the names of
the prosecutors.
"We are determined to ask for the imposition of sanctions against those
concerned," he said.
Esguerra said the prosecution, which was earlier criticized for its perceived
blunders early in the trial, should keep the battle inside the courtroom "to
protect the integrity of the process," and not resort to "trial by publicity."
FROM THE TRIBUNE
LAWYERS, JUDGES APPEAL ANEW TO SENATORS TO BE
IMPARTIAL By Ted Boehnert and Benjamin B. Pulta 01/23/2012
The bias of some senator judges in the impeachment trial is becoming
too obvious for comfort and local judges and lawyers are now calling on members
of the Senate impeachment court to put off politics as usual and try the case of
Chief Justice Renato Corona objectively.
The Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines (MetCJAP)
also appealed to the senators to disregard political affiliations and even
public opinion when they cast their votes on whether the Chief Justice is guilty
or not of the eight articles of impeachment filed against him by the House of
Representatives.
"As senator judges, they owe it to the people not only to be impartial,
independent and honest but they should be perceived to be impartial, independent
and honest as well," MetCJAP president and Cagayan de Oro City Judge Cesar
Merlas said, in an interview.
Election lawyer Romulo Macalintal called on the senator-judges in the
impeachment
of Chief Justice Renato Corona not to act in a "robotic way," stressing that
they are not meeting as a legislative body to make laws, but as "the sole power
to try and decide all cases of impeachment."
"Our senators-judges are called upon to exercise their discretion with
fairness and impartiality to the end that an intelligent judgment is arrived at
with full assurances that the constitutional rights of the impeached official
are observed and protected," Macalintal stressed.
Macalintal said that, since the function could be compared to members of
Congress convening as the National Board of Canvassers "not to make laws but to
count votes cast for President and Vice President," it was apt to recall the
separate opinion of Chief Justice Reynato Puno in a case involving the canvass
of the 2004 elections.
In an opinion, Macalintal said, Puno also reminded the senators that the
canvass of votes should not be done in a "robotic manner," especially since the
2004 NBC, then headed by then Senate President Frank Drilon and then Majority
Floor Leader Francis Pangilinan, was perceived to be biased and partisan in
favor of Arroyo.
This was so, Macalintal quoted Puno as saying, since the laws and the rules
"look upon (the senators) not as unthinking slot machines when conducting the
canvass."
"In other words, Puno said, 'lawmakers when canvassing votes, should keep
their eyes open but should shut them off to any political light.' And so it
should be in the impeachment case against Corona," the noted election lawyer
stressed.
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, who is presiding officer in the
impeachment court, would not tell off colleagues perceived to be already showing
bias towards the prosecution panel in the ongoing impeachment trial but he
reminded them to be wary of the impression they're giving to the public, on the
manner of their questioning, on being pro-defense or prosecution panel.
"It's in the rules. Political neutrality is already in our rules," Enrile
said.
"We are not supposed to be partisan, the reason that we are the judges.
Judge. Neutral. In basketball o boxing, we are the referees. We should not take
sides," he added.
Enrile's comments were sought in the light of "incident" during Thursday's
proceedings where Sen. Franklin Drilon and former Sen. Francisco Tatad were
reported to have engaged in verbal exchanges while the trial was on recess.
Tatad reportedly approached Drilon, initially commending his role in the
trial but also commented how his line of questioning somehow makes him looks
like he's "lawyering" for the prosecution panel. An irked Drilon shot back at
Tatad and even dared the latter from attempting to disqualify him in the
proceedings.
Enrile said senator-judges can seek clarification from either the prosecution
and defense panels in their presentation of documents and evidence "because we
want to know the real story." "Our role is to determine who is telling the truth
and who is not," he said.
"The impression (to the public of being impartial) is up to the senators
themselves," he said.
Enrile was quick to defend his colleagues that while such may be the
impression some of them are giving to the public, he assured that there is no
intention to take sides.
The presiding officer pointed out that in one of the proceedings, he had to
call the attention of the prosecution lawyer who, instead of questioning, was
debating with the witness.
"What he should have done was call the attention of the impeachment court and
asserted that the witness is a hostile witness and asked the court that they'd
be allowed to throw those kinds questions. It's in the rules of evidence but
they did not avail of it. Much as I would not want to speak then, I had to give
him a hint and tell him if he wants to cross-examine the witness, there's a way
of doing that. That's why I told him do not not impeach your own witness," he
said.
Still, Enrile said, it's not within his powers or authority to prevail upon
his colleagues since in the impeachment proceedings, he is merely the presiding
officer. "Each of us has his own responsibility. The entire court is the Senate,
not the individual senators. It's the body that will decide.
"When we took our oath as a judge, we vowed that we must act with utmost
impartiality."
"If they want to know my take on this as the presiding officer, they can
revisit my opening statement (in the impeachment trial)," he said.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) had earlier issued the same
appeal for impartiality among senators before the trial started last week.
"Even more empathic is the solemn oath taken by the senator - judges in
hearing the case of Chief Justice Corona - 'to do impartial justice according to
the Constitution and the law of the Philippines.' And an impartial justice can
only be based on facts and evidence and not onpersonal sentiments or swings of
public opinion," the IBP had said.
Former University of the Philippines law dean Raul Pangalangan, meanwhile,
considers the perceived bias of Chief Justice Renato Corona in favor of former
President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Arroyo the most serious among the eight
charges against him before the Senate impeachment court.
The first article of impeachment filed by the House of Representatives
accuses Corona of betrayal of public trust due to his partiality and
subservience in cases involving Mrs. Arroyo, who appointed him as Supreme Court
associate justice in 2002 and chief justice in 2010.
"Of all the impeachable offenses charged, I consider this (Article I) the
heaviest because it goes to the heart of the work of a judge, goes into the
heart of the function of an independent judiciary within our Constitution,"
Pangalangan said in an interview over the ANC.
Pangalangan said the most glaring acts committed by Corona in connection with
the first article of impeachment was his acceptance of his "midnight
appointment" from Mrs. Arroyo in 2010 and his issuance of a temporary
restraining order (TRO) on the watch list order against the former president
late last year.
He noted that majority of the members of the Supreme Court affirmed Corona's
appointment as well as the TRO he issued in Mrs. Arroyo's case. In doing so, he
said, the high court "basically turned its back on its function to ensure that
there is public accountability and looked the other way."
The prosecution panel of the House of Representatives said a tabulation of
Corona's voting record will show that he had consistently sided with the Arroyo
administration in 15 politically-significant cases involving its frontal
assaults on constitutional rights prior to his appointment and even during his
term as chief justice.
Prosecutors said that among others, Corona concurred in the high court ruling
that President Benigno Aquino III's order creating the Truth Commission was
unconstitutional and the decision stopping the Aquino government from revoking
the appointment of Arroyo's alleged midnight appointments. Angie M. Rosales
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/
