MARKED AS EVIDENCE
MANILA, JANUARY
20,
2012 (MANILA TIMES) WATCH THE VIDEO:
EVIDENCE. Valentina Cruz, spokesperson of the impeachment court, announces
that the subpoenaed documents from the register of deeds of four Metro Manila
cities have been marked as evidence in the impeachment trial of Supreme Court
Chief Justice Renato Corona. Video by INQUIRER.net's Cathy
Miranda]
WATCH THE VIDEO: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/130943/evidence
Two remarkable things about Corona impeachment trial (1)
VIRTUAL REALITY
By Tony Lopez -MANILA TIMES VETERAN COLUMNIST
First of two parts
Two things have struck me about the impeachment trial of Chief Justice
Renato C. Corona. One, the eight articles of impeachment have frail legal legs
to stand on and probably, without the politics, cannot convict Corona.
Two, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, as the presiding judge of the
24-member Senate acting as the impeachment tribunal, can make or break the case
for Corona.
At 88 on February 14, Enrile is the most experienced public official of the
land. He served for 14 years as defense secretary to Ferdinand Marcos whom he
later ousted in a four-day People Power revolt. He has served four terms in the
Senate.
Enrile was a victim of the political persecution by then President Corazon
Cojuangco Aquino who ousted him as defense minister following a November 1986
coup attempt against the housewife-turned-president. He ran for senator in 1987
but was almost cheated of an election victory until his military colleagues
raised alarums. Later, Cory Aquino charged him with rebellion and murder
following the bloody December 1989 coup, had him arrested, and confined to a
police camp in Quezon City. In June 1990, Enrile and 22 others were freed by the
Supreme Court , voting 11-2.
Enrile knows only too well how it feels to be falsely accused and how it
feels to be shamed before the bar of public opinion.
The trial of Chief Magistrate Corona began in earnest on Jan. 16, the first
working day of the Senate, and of Congress, coming from an extended vacation
marking the world's longest Christmas celebration.
The first day was won by the prosecution headed by Iloilo Fifth District
Congressman Niel Tupas, the chairman of the Houe Committee on Justice that
garnered the signatures of 188 congressmen to impeach Corona.
The Senate impeachment tribunal upheld the validity of the impeachment
complaint and hindered the defense panel's attempt to delay the trial through
technicalities like questioning the manner the Articles of Impeachment were
endorsed by the House of Representatives.
But the second day was a big victory for the defense. Presiding Judge Enrile
refused to issue subpoenas to the wife, children, and son-in-law of Chief
Justice Corona on the ground of self-incrimination and the jurisprudence showing
that a spouse cannot testify against her husband.
The prosecution also admitted it was not ready to present Case No. 1 or
Article 1. It was ready to prosecute Case No. 2 (Article 2) but their witnesses
were absent.
During the first day, Corona's lead defense counsel, Serafin Cuevas, a former
justice of the Supreme Court, pleaded not guilty on behalf of his client.
Co-defense counsel former law dean Eduardo de los Angeles refuted point by
point the charges against Corona.
Delos Angeles classified the eight Articles of Impeachment into two
categories: those involving Supreme Court decisions (Articles 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and
7); and those that pertain to the non-disclosure of the SALN of the Chief
Justice, and his alleged refusal to account for the JDF. (Articles 2 and 8).
Article 1 alleges Corona's partiality in cases involving the Arroyo
administration.
Article 2 claims Corona failed to disclose statement of assets, liabilities
and net worth (SALN).
Article 3 claims Corona failed to observe stringent standards of competence,
integrity, probity and independence.
Article 4 says Corona disregarded the principle of separation of powers by
issuing a status quo ante order against the House of Representatives in the case
concerning the impeachment of then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.
Article 5 alleges Corona's arbitrariness and partiality in cases related to
the creation of 16 new cities and promotion of Dinagat Island into a province.
Article 6 claims Corona arrogated unto himself the authority to investigate
an erring member of the Supreme Court to exculpate him.
Article 7 alleges Corona's partiality in granting a temporary restraining
order in favor of the Arroyo couple.
Article 8 claims Corona failed and refuses to account for the Judiciary
Development Fund and Special Allowance for the Judiciary collections.
(Continued tomorrow)
Two remarkable things about Corona impeachment trial (2)
Published : Friday, January 20, 2012 00:00 Article Views : 928 Written by :
VIRTUAL REALITY By Tony Lopez
Last of two parts
[The first part of this piece by Tony Lopez appeared yesterday. This last
part continues Chief Justice Renato Corona's co-defense counsel former law dean
Eduardo de los Angeles' point by point refutation of the charges against the
CJ.]
Re alleged non-accounting of judiciary funds and non-filing and disclosure of
SALN, de los Angeles asserted "the documentary evidence will prove the
contrary." He added, "with respect to his SALN, the defense will establish that
in accordance with law, the Chief Justice annually files his SALN with the Clerk
of Court of the Supreme Court, who has legal custody of such documents. We shall
show that the Clerk of Court is restricted from disclosing the SALNs by
resolutions first issued during the term of Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan way
back in 1989."
As to the Supreme Court decisions, de los Angeles disputes Corona's alleged
bias. He explained: "First, it is not fair to handpick decisions that supposedly
favor the Arroyo administration; all the decisions of the Supreme Court must be
considered. Second, there are several decisions against the former President and
her administration. For example, in Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines v.
Office of the Executive Secretary, the Chief Justice himself penned the decision
declaring former President Arroyo's Executive Order No. 46 null and void. Third,
in any decision, the Supreme Court always bases its judgment on sound legal
grounds."
As for the Truth Commission, de los Angeles assured "the defense will
establish that the Supreme Court was not biased towards the Arroyo
administration." "We will show that the Supreme Court decision was right," the
defense lawyer said. Executive Order No. 1 (which created the Truth Commission)
violated the Equal Protection Clause because the prosecution of Mrs. Arroyo was
its sole purpose."
Moreover, de los Angeles said, "The Supreme Court even suggested a cure for
the defect by not limiting the probe to the Arroyo administration. But the
Executive Department stubbornly refused to adopt such simple amendment."
As to the TRO enjoining Secretary Leila de Lima from enforcing her Watchlist
Order, "the Supreme Court acted in accordance with the Constitution and
jurisprudence," de los Angeles explained.
"Only a court can issue a hold order after a case has been filed," the lawyer
pointed out, in Pilipino.
At the time of the hold order, "there was no criminal case yet against Mrs.
Arroyo although long before that hold order, the Akbayan party list had long ago
filed a complaint for plunder (against Arroyo).
"Isn't it clear that it was the Executive Department that was at fault in the
case of Mrs. Arroyo?" de los Angeles asked.
The former law dean draw a parallel between the anti-corruption drive of then
Justice Secretary Jose W. Diokno (against businessman Harry Stonehill) and the
anti-corruption drive of President Aquino.
Delos Angeles recalled: "In both, there are crusading officials who want to
eliminate corruption. In both, the public overwhelmingly support these
officials. In both, the officials unfortunately transgressed the Constitution.
And in both, the Supreme Court stepped in and issued adverse and unpopular
decisions because its task is to always uphold the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights."
As to the complaint that Corona betrayed the public trust when the Supreme
Court decided on the cityhood of 16 municipalities, the creation of a new
district in Camarines Sur, and the conversion of the Dinagat Island into a
province, de los Angeles reminded the congressman-prosecutors that it was
Congress itself that enacted those laws and yet, it is Congress that is now mad
with the Supreme Court for upholding the enacted laws.
"What kind of foolishness is this?" de los Angeles snorted.
He also reminded the prosecution that all Supreme Court decisions are
"rendered by the Supreme Court, never by the Chief Justice alone."
"The chief justice is only one vote. Each Justice votes according to his own
opinion. Contrary to the claim of Congressman Tupas, there is no bloc voting
bloc in the Supreme Court."
Delos Angeles concluded: "This impeachment sends a chilling threat to the
Supreme Court to withhold the exercise of its judicial power and just let the
President have his way.
"Unfortunately, his obsessive pursuit of his goal has, at times, resulted in
the infringement of the law. It has also brought the branches of government into
collision, and now it divides the nation."
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/
