ENRILE FUMES, TRASHES ART 3
MANILA, FEBRUARY 23, 2012
(ABS-CBN) After 21 impeachment trial days, the prosecution on
Tuesday ended its presentation on Article 2 of the impeachment complaint against
Chief Justice Renato Corona, accusing him of failure to truthfully disclose his
Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALN).
Lead prosecutor Niel Tupas Jr. said they are "leaving the article with
reservations" on Corona's alleged dollar accounts in Philippine Savings Bank
(PSBank).
Acting on a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) by PSBank, the
opening of the alleged dollar accounts was stopped by theSupreme Court last
February 9 in a vote of 8-5.
The prosecution proceeded to Article 3, which they started discussing weeks
ago, only to be superseded by issues on the Article 2.
Prosecutors likely to finish presentation by next week
By RG Cruz, ABS-CBN News Posted at 02/21/2012 4:54 PM | Updated as of
02/21/2012 4:54 PM
MANILA, Philippines - House prosecutors will likely rest its case
after presenting Article 7 of the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice
Renato Corona by next week, House Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales said
Tuesday.
"Hihinto na ito sa Article 7. With that, tapos na. Siguro next week so long
as walang incidental distractions na, wala nang incidental queries. I'm pretty
confident not later than next week tapos na prosecution," Gonzales said.
Under the revised order of presentation, Article 7--the restraining order
against the watchlist order against former President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo---is the 3rd article to be presented after Articles 2 and 3.
Gonzales said the trial was stalled on Article 2 because the Senate
impeachment court focused on the matter of the authenticity of the signature
card of Corona that was attached to the prosecutors' request for subpoena.
He said the issue shouldn't matter anymore since the Senate upheld the
temporary restraining order of the Supreme cCourt against the opening of
Corona's dollar deposits.
Gonzales said the TRO may even outlive the impeachment trial because it has
no expiration date.
The majority leader said they expect the trial to be over before the March 23
adjournment of Congress for Holy Week.
"We expect the trial matatapos before break on March 23. If submitted on
March 23, it will depend on senators to evaluate and make decision. Kung
mangyayari yun, defense will rest before break at walang rebuttal evidence I
expect entire period we are on break to evaluate evidence and make own decision
by May."
As this developed, Gonzales said they are not inclined to transmit the
impeachment of Supreme Court Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo to the
Senate while the Corona impeachment trial remains pending.
He expects the justice committee to submit its committee report on the del
Castillo case by next week.
Under the rules of the House, the House has 60 session days to act on the
complaint or it lapses into the archives. Gonzales said the public should not
get tired of the impeachment process since it's the only way to hold impeachable
officials accountable.
FROM MANILA STANDARD
Enrile fumes, throws out Art. 3 as 'trash' by
Christine F. Herrera and John Anthony Conception
THE House prosecutors in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice
Renato Corona suffered a major setback Tuesday after Senate President Juan Ponce
Enrile barred them from calling three witnesses and described the evidence they
sought to present as "trash."
In Tuesday's hearing, Enrile said the testimony from Philippine Airlines
officials that Corona and his wife received special favors while there were
cases pending before the Court was "irrelevant and immaterial" to the charges
contained in Article 3 of the impeachment complaint, which did not allege
bribery.
He faulted the prosecution for submitting another defective article after
Article 2 was widely criticized as being faulty and poorly prepared.
"If your articles of impeachment are defective that is your problem, I
consider this trash," Enrile told the prosecutors who tried to present witnesses
from the airline to show the Coronas enjoyed special treatment.
"You are expanding the allegation. What is the relevance of your witnesses?"
Enrile asked after the prosecution tried to call PAL vice president Enrique
Javier.
Enrile also dressed down the prosecution after lead prosecutor and Ioilo Rep.
Niel Tupas Jr. urged the court not to be tied with "a mere technicality."
"For heavens sake, this is not mere technicality," Enrile told Tupas.
"The grounds for impeachment can be found in Article 11 of the Constitution.
We are already very liberal. You are making us review the decisions of the
Supreme Court. Why are we allowing it? So as not to embarass you. You want me to
lecture you more?"
Enrile also disallowed witnesses from the Rustan's department store where
Corona and his wife allegedly went on a shopping spree using Supreme Court
funds.
Enrile said their testimony lacked allegations that would constitute an
impeachable offense.
"If you want to allege the receipt of gifts, valuable things, then amend
[your impeachment complaint]. You are in effect alleging a crime. You are
alleging that he was bribed. You should have alleged bribery," Enrile told
Tupas.
"We did not allege it your honor. We alleged betrayal of public trust," Tupas
said.
"Precisely! If you understand the word bribery. I do not know how you learned
your art of pleading," Enrile told Tupas.
He said the only way the prosecution could present the witnesses in question
was to go back to the House and amend Article 3, an option Tupas declined.
When Tupas and Citzens Battle Against Corruption Rep. Sherwin Tugna tried to
argue the point, Enrile snapped.
"The court has already ruled," he said.
"You are wasting the time of this court. My God, we have to have some
discipline here. You made allegations and you are going to expand it without the
proper charges in your Article 3 … You take me to court."
Frustration and demoralization were etched on the faces of the prosecutors
after they failed to establish that Corona was not "a man of probity, integrity
and independence" under Article 3 of their impeachment complaint.
Their frustrated staff members hurled invectives to let off steam.
The impeachment trial was adjourned at 4:58 p.m. without the prosecution
presenting any of their witnesses, including the airline officials who were
supposed to confirm that the Coronas had been given Platinum cards that allowed
them to make 18 trips to Hong Kong, Singapore, Guam and Hawaii.
The prosecutors asked for a continuation of Wednesday's trial, but were
running out of witness to present since the court had not approved their request
for a subpoena of four Supreme Court justices and records.
Without the Court records, the prosecutors could not prove that the Coronas
used public funds in their alleged shopping spree.
Nor has the prosecution received approval to present witnesses for Article 7,
alleging special treatment given to former President Gloria Arroyo in the case
of the temporary restraining order on a travel ban that the government imposed
on her.
"We're going downhill! We may be left only with Article 2," a prosecutor told
the Manila Standard.
Earlier in the trial, Enrile said the impeachment court was having problems
with the articles of impeachment because they were faulty and haphazardly filed.
"You have failed to gather evidence before formally filing the impeachment
charges and that the Senate is gathering it for you in the actual hearing
through compulsory processes," Enrile said.
"You should have read those materials before you instituted the articles of
impeachment."
Enrile said that even if the articles of impeachment was signed by a third of
members of the House of Representatives, the allegations contained in them
should not be gathered from "thin air."
FROM PHILSTAR
(ARTICLE 3)
JPE rejects testimony on CJ's flight perks By
Christina Mendez (The Philippine Star) Updated February 22, 2012 12:00
AMComments (303)
[BPI Ayala branch assistant manager Mara Arcilla takes the witness
stand at the continuation of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato
Corona at the Senate yesterday.]
MANILA, Philippines - Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, presiding judge in
the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, stopped yesterday an
executive of Philippine Airlines (PAL) from testifying on the alleged travel
perks given to the chief magistrate, saying his testimony was beyond the scope
of the impeachment complaint.
Enrique Javier, 53, PAL vice president for sales, had barely begun his
testimony when it was cut short by Enrile, who argued that it was irrelevant to
the issue being discussed yesterday, which was Article 3 of the impeachment
complaint.
Article 3 accuses Corona of culpable violation of the Constitution and/or
betrayal of public trust for his role in the Supreme Court's flip-flopping on
cases, including the one between PAL and an organization of flight attendants
and stewardesses.
"We deny this witness. It is not relevant to Article 3," Enrile told the
prosecution's Rep. Sherwin Tugna. It was Tugna who introduced Javier to the
impeachment court.
"You are not very careful in your allegations, and you want to expand it in
the course of the trial. I warned you several times," Enrile said. "You know,
there is a limit to the patience of this court."
He said Javier would have testified on "alleged bribery" of Corona, an
allegation not included in Article 3.
Enrile said the prosecution should amend its impeachment complaint if it
would insist on raising issues regarding Corona's alleged perks from PAL.
An amendment of the complaint would require bringing the Articles of
Impeachment back to the House of Representatives – an effort that might come to
naught in view of the one-year prohibition against filing of impeachment cases
against an impeachable official.
The prosecution said Corona and his wife Cristina enjoyed special privileges
from PAL at the time the decision on the case of the Flight Attendants and
Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) was reversed by the Supreme
Court.
"This witness is allegedly being presented in connection with Article 3 and
there is no mention of alleged plane tickets mentioned in here," lead defense
counsel Serafin Cuevas said.
"Now counsel for the prosecution, what's the relevancy, and materiality of
the witness to this charge?" Enrile asked.
"The presentation of the testimony of the vice president of PAL is that the
respondent and his wife received free travel benefits, special privileges while
a case is pending before the SC need not be alleged in the complaint…," Tugna
said. "Because there are mere statements of evidentiary facts which constitute
as to reason for the partiality of the respondent for the Philippine Airlines.
Partiality," Tugna stressed.
But Enrile was not convinced.
"Now you are expanding the coverage of this article, this court will not
allow the expansion of that article, unless you amend it. So ordered," a visibly
exasperated Enrile said.
"The court has already ruled, you are wasting the time of this Court... My
God, we need to have some discipline in here. You made allegations and you want
to expand it, without the proper charges in Article 3," Enrile added. The Senate
president stopped Tugna when the latter tried again to explain the relevance of
Javier's testimony. "If you want to introduce that, then amend your Articles of
Impeachment," Enrile told the prosecutor.
Tugna insisted that the witness' testimony would "help establish the
partiality of the respondent in favor of Philippine Airlines."
'Take me to court'
"But you did not allege it here, but the court has ruled so that's it. You
take me to the court," Enrile said, prompting Senate majority leader Vicente
Sotto III to "discharge" Javier from the witness stand.
To press his point, Enrile read aloud Article 3 of the impeachment complaint.
"I just read to you Article 3 of your impeachment. This is the one that will
be voted upon by the members of this court. There is no allegation in Article 3,
you alleged about perquisites or favors," he said.
"The charge in Article 3 is that the respondent culpably violated the
Constitution and betrayed the public trust because he lacks independence and
integrity," Tugna explained.
"Wait a minute, when the court speaks you stop. You read the way you framed
your Article 3… I know you are a literate person and it says, you are quoting
Section 7, para 3 of the Constitution that provides that a member of the
judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity and
independence and the rest in that three charges…," the Senate President said.
Despite Tugna's insistence, Enrile discharged the witness.
The Senate court then had to adjourn early since there were no more witnesses
on standby yesterday for Article 3.
Lead prosecutor Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. also tried to defend Javier's
testimony but got a dressing down from Enrile.
"The prosecution takes exception to the ruling regarding the matter. It is
the position of the prosecution that with the presentation of the witness from
PAL, the prosecution does not expand the complaint as stated," Tupas said.
"As to the relevancy of Article 3, it proves consideration, inducement,
motive. To us, the motive here is very, very important, crucial, critical to
impeachment proceeding. To us, it is very important to prove the motive of
impeachment. The very heart of Article 3 is integrity, probity and
independence," he added.
"Mr. Counsel, I do not know how you learned your art of pleading. I do not
fault you but I am basing my ruling on your allegations and nothing more. And if
you're going to insist on your position, I say I will not change the ruling," he
added.
Enrile threatened to send the Articles of Impeachment back to the House of
Representatives if the prosecution would insist on including bribery in its
allegations against Corona in Article 3.
"You want me to order you to amend Articles of Impeachment and send it back
to the house? You have a choice," Enrile said.
"You are in effect alleging a crime, which we'll have to evaluate whether it
is a high crime. You are in effect alleging that it was a bribe to make that
decision," he said.
"The discharge of your witness was because his testimony was considered
irrelevant with respect to Article 3... is not the fault of this court. It was
the fault of your way of presenting your case and in making your allegations in
your Articles of Impeachment," he added.
Tupas continued to defend the position of the prosecution and even argued
that the court was dismissing the witness on mere technicality.
"We respect that but technicalities cannot be permitted to prevail in such an
important proceeding," Tupas said.
"For heavens sake this is not technicality! The grounds for impeachment are
very clearly stated in Article 11 of the Constitution. We are already very
liberal. You are in effect asking us to review decisions of the Supreme Court,"
Enrile said.
"Who are we to review the decisions of the Supreme Court? We allow it in
order not to embarrass you but you are going too far. Do you want me to lecture
to you more?" he added.
To which Tupas replied: "No need Mr. presiding officer."
"If your articles are defective, that's your responsibility. You made an
allegation, specifically this: charging the respondent (with) lack of probity,
integrity and so forth and so on and you stated the basis of your conclusion,"
Enrile said.
"Your statement that he doesn't have competence, integrity, probity and what
else, independence, is a conclusion of fact based on what you want to prove and
now you're offering a stranger in paradise to prove an allegation that doesn't
exist in Article 3. That's why I consider this a trash. Let it be a part of your
manifestation," he added.
'Guided optimism'
Defense lawyer Rico Paolo Quicho said they welcomed Enrile's decision with
"guided optimism."
"We've been saying all along that it's easy to make accusations without
presenting evidence," Quicho said in Filipino.
Cuevas was more optimistic, saying that Enrile's ruling might pave way for
the acquittal of Corona.
Another Corona lawyer, Tranquil Salvador III, observed that the Senate body,
especially presiding officer Enrile, may have had enough of the violation of
procedures by the prosecution in the presentation of witnesses.
"It all boils down to one thing, that the inherent problem is the complaint
itself," Salvador said. "This is simply abiding by the law, so we welcome this."
Karen Jimeno, defense spokesperson, said they had been very aggressive in
convincing the court to determine the validity of the impeachment complaint.
Salvador said Enrile, as presiding officer, just wanted to show how the
prosecution should present witnesses.
"It's very telling... Why don't you just amend it? That's very telling,"
Salvador said.
The defense lawyers, meanwhile, asked the impeachment court to reconsider the
rule that bars lawyers from objecting to or questioning senator-judges.
"We are pleading for a reexamination of this ruling to avoid the usual
occurrence of what is known as mistrial. Because while it is true that the
proceedings of this court as of the moment may not amount to mistrial, it is
equally discernible that it will be raised in the future in the event that the
situation goes worse than this," Cuevas told Enrile.
"We say that this would amount to a mistrial because there is nothing left in
favor of the impeached public officer. He cannot object. He cannot make any
manifestation. In all probability, as what we have noticed before, the question
of a member of this court centers on practically everything," Cuevas said.
"One question may be raised followed up by another, leading to an issuance of
an order requiring the production of documents, which documents have not yet
been proved to be material to the issue or relevant to the subject matter under
discussion," he said.
Cuevas said that during the impeachment of former President Joseph Estrada
the lawyers were allowed to object to questions from judges.
The former Supreme Court justice noted that there were many documents
produced in court that were not formally introduced as evidence and could not be
objected to or immediately questioned.
He cited the case of some of the documents such as bank records that were
produced in court because of orders of some of senator-judges even if such
documents were not originally part of the case or should not be raised in court.
Cuevas argued that an order of a senator-judge to require the witness to
produce documents is worse than issuance of subpoena.
"A subpoena may be objected. But if there is a motion of the member of the
court (to produce documents), automatically he is under legal obligation,"
Cuevas said.
Senator-judge Edgardo Angara, meanwhile, explained that the rule does not bar
counsels from both panels from objecting to questioning by a judge.
"There is no ban against any of the lawyers objecting to a question but it is
in the form of objection that there is difference," Angara pointed out.
"Instead of saying I object Mr. Judge you may say Mr. Judge I filed a
reservation or an exception to that question because it tends to prejudice my
client," Angara said.
"I think for the sake of fairness we ought to really allow any of the lawyers
to make an exemption rather than object verbally to the question of a judge
because even in a grand jury that is a procedure," he said.
Enrile assured Cuevas that his suggestion would be taken up during their
caucus.
"We cannot amend the rules now. To amend it will delay the proceedings. We
have to republish the rules. We will take this up in caucus," he told Cuevas.
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima is expected to take the witness stand today
for the prosecution. – Helen Flores, Jose Rodel Clapano,
Marvin Sy
(ARTICLE 2)
Chiz: PSBank docs are like 'Hello, Garci' tapes By
David Dizon, ABS-CBNnews.com Posted at 02/13/2012 3:06 PM | Updated as of
02/13/2012 7:21 PM
MANILA, Philippines - Sen. Francis Escudero on Monday likened the
bank documents of Chief Justice Renato Corona's PSBank accounts to the "Hello,
Garci" wiretapping tapes allegedly showing massive fraud in the 2004
presidential election.
"Illegal daw. Wiretapped daw so hindi pwedeng pakinggan. Ano yun, hindi
pwedeng pakinggan ng Kongreso tapos napakinggan na ng buong bansa? Ganun din
ito. Lumabas sa buong bansa tapos kami sasabihin namin 'Ay, wala kaming
nakita,'" he said in an interview on ANC's "Headstart."
The "Hello, Garci" tapes are alleged wiretapped tapes of conversations
between poll commissioners and various officials and individuals during the 2004
election. One of the recorded conversations allegedly between then President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Comelec commissioner Virgilio Garcillano supposedly
detailed an alleged plot to pad Mrs. Arroyo's votes in the presidential poll.
Mrs. Arroyo apologized on nationwide TV for talking to a poll official but
denied rigging the election. The tapes would later be used in various
impeachment attempts against Arroyo.
Escudero said the House prosecutors made a blunder when they attached alleged
specimen cards of Corona's accounts to their request for subpoenas of Corona's
accounts.
He said the Senate issued the subpoenas based on the documents.
"If they had simply enumerated the account numbers from their intelligence
sources or whatever, OK lang yun e. But in their request for subpoena, they
attached documents that actually constitute the clearest evidence of a violation
of RA 1405 or secrecy of bank deposits. That is in so far as the fruit of the
poisonous tree is concerned," he said.
However, Escudero also pointed out that the bank documents can be admissible
if it came from a private individual and not a government official.
One specimen card showed that Corona allegedly has a PSBank account with an
initial deposit of "$700K," which prosecutors interpreted to be $700,000 (around
P38 million in October 2008). The prosecution alleged this was not declared in
Corona's Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALN).
PSBank president Pascual Garcia earlier said the bank documents were
facsimiles of the originals from PSBank Katipunan. He added that there were
differences in the facsimiles when compared to the originals.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has granted PSBank's petition for a temporary
restraining order on the Senate subpoena for Corona's dollar accounts.
No P100M offer from Ochoa
In the interview, Escudero denied being offered P100 million by Executive
Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. in exchange for voting to open Corona's dollar
accounts.
He said he spoke to Ochoa twice last week but did not discuss his vote on the
Supreme Court TRO on Corona's dollar accounts, or any P100 million offer.
He said he had already made his position known last Friday that the Senate
should obey the Supreme Court TRO on Corona's accounts. He said he did not want
the Senate to set an example of questioning the court's decisions.
Waiver on bank deposits
Escudero said the issue of opening Corona's bank accounts would not be a
problem if the Chief Justice decides on his own to open the accounts.
He also said he is also pressing Senate Bill 107, which requires all public
officials and employees, except those who serve in honorary capacity, to open
their financial assets to government audit through a written waiver submitted to
the Office of the Ombudsman.
"Ang logic ko dun, bato-bato sa langit, yung away may-file ng waiver bakit
kayop pumasok sa gobyerno? Yun lang gustong mag-file ng waiver ang pumasok. If
you have some concerns, [public office] is a privilege, not a right. And if you
are afraid, don't run for public office," he said.
The senator appealed to his colleagues to fast-track the bill to promote
greater transparency among public officials.
"If the rule is good for Corona, it should also be good for all of us," he
said.
Escudero said there are legitimately rich people who are in public office who
do not want the true state of their wealth known for fear of being kidnapped. He
said that if they do not want to risk that, they should not enter government.
On the other hand, he said there is nothing stopping anyone from entering
public office if they feel that it is their calling in life.
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/
