ROW OVER TESTIMONY OF NOY'S APPOINTEE LOOMS
MANILA, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 (PHILSTAR) By Jess Diaz - Congressmen
prosecuting Chief Justice Renato Corona in his Senate impeachment trial are
eyeing to rest their case against him in six days.
"We expect to finish in six trial days or earlier," prosecution spokesman
Rep. Miro Quimbo of Marikina said yesterday.
"The Corona camp earlier announced it would need eight trial days to present
its side. They will most likely have more than that," he said.
Quimbo said the prosecution would rest its case with Article 7 of the
impeachment complaint, which accuses Corona of partiality toward former
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, particularly in the Supreme Court's issuance
of its Nov. 15 temporary restraining order (TRO), which would have allowed
Arroyo and her husband to leave the country.
"We will be presenting some more witnesses surrounding the issuance and
service of the TRO in favor of Mrs. Arroyo," Quimbo said.
Iloilo Rep.
Niel Tupas Jr., who heads the prosecution panel, said two to four more witnesses
would be presented to support Article 7.
"After that, we will decide on suggestions to rest the case because of the
strength of Article 2," Tupas said.
Article 2 accuses Corona of nondisclosure of his statement of assets,
liabilities and net worth (SALN) and failure to declare some of his wealth.
Tupas said what could prolong the presentation of evidence would be a
decision on the part of the Supreme Court reversing its TRO on the examination
of Corona's dollar deposits in Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank).
Aurora Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara said the prosecution and the 188 House
members who impeached the Chief Justice on Dec. 12 considered the testimonies
and documents presented to the Senate impeachment court as the "strongest and
clearest" evidence against Corona.
He said officers of PSBank and Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) have
testified that Corona had more than P31 million in peso deposits as of Dec. 31,
2010.
"It's obvious that he did not declare these deposits in his 2010 SALN as he
reported 'cash and investments' amounting only to P3.5 million," he said.
Angara said the peso deposits are on top of five dollar accounts with PSBank,
whose examination the Supreme Court (SC) has stopped.
"In addition, he emptied three peso accounts holding more than P36 million on
Dec. 12, the day the House of Representatives overwhelmingly impeached him," he
stressed.
Angara pointed out that previous testimonies and documents presented to the
impeachment court showed the Coronas' property acquisitions.
"CJ Corona did not declare at least three luxurious condominium units,
including the P14.5-million Bellagio 1 penthouse in Global City, Taguig, in his
SALNs for the years they were acquired," he added.
Last week, the prosecution presented Justice Secretary Leila de Lima as its
first witness on Article 7.
De Lima said Corona helped Mrs. Arroyo, now a Pampanga representative, and
her husband Jose Miguel in their attempt to leave the country and escape
prosecution.
She said the Chief Justice made it appear through SC administrator-spokesman
Midas Marquez and in a handwritten note he sent to the clerk of court that the
Nov. 15 TRO was immediately effective despite the Arroyos' non-compliance with
all the three conditions for it to take effect.
The SC has prohibited justices and its officers and employees, including
Marquez and the clerk of court, from testifying in the impeachment trial on
confidential documents and deliberations.
In his answer to the impeachment charges, Corona insisted that the TRO
allowing the Arroyos to leave the country was immediately effective.
He said if the conditions were not complied with within five days, the TRO
would be lifted.
This assertion prompted prosecutors to comment in their reply to Corona's
answer that the Chief Justice betrayed his real intention: he wanted the Arroyos
to immediately flee with or without their compliance on the three conditions.
Sereno could be the key
De Lima also testified that Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, in her dissent to
the issuance of the Nov. 15 TRO, wrote about certain irregularities that made it
appear that the TRO was immediately effective.
Though the SC, in a Feb. 14 resolution, has prohibited justices and court
personnel from appearing in Corona's impeachment trial, the prosecution hopes
that Sereno would volunteer to testify on the irregularities she mentioned in
her dissent.
Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares, a member of the prosecution panel, said the
Senate impeachment court should challenge the resolution since it is an "attempt
at cover-up" and it bars senator-judges from searching for the truth.
He said the SC issuance prevents court personnel from testifying on simple
administrative matters such as the time the TRO resolution was issued and
announced, the date and time the Arroyos complied with one or two of the TRO's
three conditions, and the date and time De Lima was furnished a copy of the TRO.
"The SC wants to prevent the truth from coming out. We believe that the Feb.
14 resolution is unconstitutional," Colmenares said.
FROM THE INQUIRER
CORONA TRIAL Row over testimony of Supreme Court justice
looms Issue up in caucus of SenateBy Christian V.
Esguerra Philippine Daily Inquirer 12:10 am | Monday, February 27th
[PHOTO - CLOSE ENCOUNTER Supreme Court Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno
(right) with President Aquino and Chief Justice Renato Corona after her
oath-taking at Malacañang in this photo taken in 2010. INQUIRER PHOTO]
Will Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno's testimony end up with Supreme
Court justices washing their dirty linen in public?
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago on Sunday cautioned against the
prosecution's insistence to have Sereno appear as its witness in the impeachment
trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona.
"Even if she's willing to testify alone, it would be a slippery slope. It
would open the door for other Supreme Court justices appearing in an impeachment
trial over one pretext or another," Santiago told the Philippine Daily Inquirer
in a phone interview.
"When the time comes for the defense to present its case, what would prevent
them from inviting other justices who, as you say, were critical of Justice
Sereno's dissenting opinion? The prosecution can't claim this (privilege)
alone."
Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III said he would give a "word of
caution" to fellow senator-judges when the caucus took up the matter at 11 a.m.
today.
"There might be a conflict within the Supreme Court and we might only worsen
it," Sotto said in Filipino in a separate interview.
Prosecutors want Sereno, an appointee of President Benigno Aquino III, to
testify on her dissenting opinion on the effectivity of the high tribunal's Nov.
15, 2011, temporary restraining order (TRO).
Bayan Muna Representative Neri Colmenares on Sunday said he would file a
motion for reconsideration of a February 14 resolution issued by the high
tribunal that the court could "not waive privileges attendant to the proposed
testimony" of its officials and employees in Corona's impeachment trial "on
matters covered by privilege and confidentiality."
"It is absurd," Colmenares said. "This practically means that anyone, from
Chief Justice to Supreme Court drivers cannot testify."
He said the prosecution would press the Senate to subpoena court officials,
otherwise it would weaken its power to try impeachment cases.
Legally ineffective
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima dwelt heavily on Sereno's dissenting opinion
when she testified last week as part of the prosecution's effort to show that
Corona had favored former President and now Pampanga Representative Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo through the issuance of the TRO. The Senate ruled that De
Lima's testimony was "hearsay" and that the best evidence was Sereno's
dissenting opinion.
Sereno argued that the TRO was "legally ineffective" because Arroyo's camp
had failed to comply with the condition requiring her to appoint a legal
representative "who will receive subpoena, orders and other legal processes on
their behalf during their absence."
The wording in Arroyo's appointment of Ferdinand Topacio as her counsel was
"to produce summons or receive documentary evidence," which Sereno interpreted
as an absence of "faithful compliance."
But the Supreme Court en banc later "resolved to clarify that the TRO was not
suspended even with the finding that there was no full compliance with the
conditions of the TRO."
In their respective opinions supporting the majority decision, Associate
Justices Roberto Abad and Presbitero Velasco both disputed Sereno's contention.
Defense lawyer Ramon Esguerra yesterday said his camp would not seek the
testimony of Abad and Velasco in case the prosecution succeeded in presenting
Sereno. He said the defense would "simply highlight the significant portions of
the opinion that will refute what Justice Sereno said."
Sereno SALN
[PHOTO - Sereno, who is being eyed by President Benigno Aquino 3rd as a
possible replacement of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona, declared an
asset of P17.9 million in her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth in
2010, Reported by Manila Times. News report on text comment in photo was from
Daily Tribune below ]
Esguerra said Sereno could also be questioned on her statement of assets,
liabilities and net worth (SALN).
Critics of Sereno have said that she did not include in her statement her
earnings as a lawyer in the legal proceedings surrounding the controversial
Terminal 3 of Ninoy Aquino International Airport.
In case Sereno testifies, Esguerra said "she has to admit that her opinion is
not the majority and the points raised against her dissent by Justices Abad and
Velasco."
"She will be asked about what she discussed about the case with Secretary De
Lima, which the latter intimated in her testimony last week," he added.
Esguerra was referring to De Lima's claim that she had learned that Corona
had sent handwritten corrections to the resolution prepared by Velasco. Corona
allegedly made it appear that Arroyo had complied with the conditions of the
TRO.
Abad also wrote that "it is not true that the court or the Chief Justice has
declined to promulgate Justice Sereno's dissenting opinion following the vote
taken in the case on Nov. 29, 2011."
"She agreed to submit her dissent not later than December 1, but she did not.
Neither did she ask the Chief Justice and the other members of the court for
additional time to submit her dissenting opinion," he said.
"Consequently, the court promulgated its November 29 resolution in the case
without Justice Sereno's promised dissenting opinion," he said.
"The court did not deny her the right to have her opinion promulgated
together with the main resolution. She broke agreement by not submitting it on
the date set for it."
Confidentiality
Abad and Velasco said Sereno "breached" the Internal Rules of the Supreme
Court (IRSC), particularly the "confidentiality of court sessions."
Wrote Abad: "Justice Sereno has breached this rule, narrating in her
dissenting opinion her recollection of the en banc's deliberation in executive
session on the effect of the petitioners' failure to comply with the second
condition" of the TRO that the court had issued in the case.
"The court's deliberations are confidential simply because the court realizes
that only by making it so can the justices freely discuss the issues before it.
Broadcasting such discussions to the public would have a chilling effect on
those who take part in it. One would be careful not to take unpopular positions
or make comments that border on the ridiculous, which often is a way of seeing
the issues in a different perspective … If our deliberations cannot remain
confidential, we might as well close down business," he added.
In his separate opinion, Velasco recommended "that the portions of the
unpromulgated dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno delving on what under the
rules are considered confidential be expunged for being violative" of Section 2,
Rule 10 of the IRSC.
Santiago, a former trial court judge who was recently elected to the
International Criminal Court, said it would be a "game changer if the
prosecution insisted on inviting" Sereno.
Wishful thinking
"It's wishful thinking. There is no point for the prosecution to make such a
request. It's very, very weak for the prosecution to ask for this special
privilege," she said, noting that the impeachment court had earlier ruled not to
subpoena justices.
"The Senate has already made up its mind. Now, they're taking a different
tack. They only want to 'invite' a Supreme Court justice. But there's no
significant difference between a subpoena and an invitation because the same
issues will still be involved," she said.
Santiago also described as "out of place" the motion to send
"interrogatories," a list of questions to Sereno.
The senator said the approach was applicable only if, for instance, the
"witness is abroad and you cannot make her come back to the country."
"If the witness is available, you don't ask for that remedy," she said. "In
this case, the witness is right here so it's not applicable. It does not conform
to the philosophy of the rules of court." With reports from Marlon Ramos and Gil
C. Cabacungan Originally posted: 5:38 pm | Sunday, February 26th, 2012
EARLIER REPORT FROM THE DAILY
TRIBUNE
Solon mulls impeachment raps against Justice Sereno
By Charlie V. Manalo 01/25/2012
Samar Rep. Ben Evardone yesterday bared that he is considering filing an
impeachment case against Supreme Court Junior Associate Justice Lourdes Sereno,
the first appointee to the high court of President Aquino, if he can be
presented evidence against Sereno showing that she failed to state her huge P25
million legal fees as the Philippine government's lawyer in the arbitration
cases in the International Chamber of Commerce court, both in Singapore and
Washington, in her Statement of Assets Liabilities, Networth (SALn).
In her summary of her SALn, which she had submitted earlier, when there was
pressure from the House of Representatives through the House prosecutors for
impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona to bare his SALn, Sereno's networth of
some P17 million appeared to be less than what he had earned from her
professional fees as one of the Philippine government's lawyers in arbitrating
the cases concerning the Philippine International Airport Terminals Co. (Piatco)
in the ICCin the case of Fraport AG, on the Ninoy Aquino International Airport
Terminal lll (NAIA-3) controversy.
In a telephone interview, Evardone told the Tribune he might consider filing
an impeachment case against Sereno, citing the same case against SC Chief
Justice Renato Corona if he could be provided evidence that Aquino's first
appointee to the High Court misdeclared the true value of her net worth.
The Tribune report was based on documentary evidence and some of the
documents from which details of the fees and allowances as well as vouchers are
already in the House of Representatives.
There was a hearing in the House of the committee on transportation held last
March 15, 2011 at Rooms 3 and 4, Ramon Mitra Building at the Batasan premises in
Quezon City.
The hearing was presided over by the committee chairman, Rep. Roger Mercado.
Resource persons were, among others, Mr. Jimmy Gianan, who had submitted an
affidavit which stated that he further "affirms thatr the summaries of invoices
from Justice Florentino P. Feliciano, Professor Maria Lourdes Sereno, Justice
Vicente V. Mendoza and Commissioner Bartolome C. Fernandez, submitted herewith
in connection with the above mentioned arbitration case based on available data
and record and have been paid by the Republic."
Gianan also submitted a copy of the Commission on Audit from the Manila
International Airport Authority that shows just how much the MIAA has shelled
out in the amount of over P2 billion, with the attachments.
But Evardone apparently did not know that the documents and "evidence" are
right there in the House of Representatives, saying:"Yes, I could file an
impeachment case against (Justice) Sereno if you (Tribune) can provide me the
documents to prove she misstated the true value of her net worth in her SALn,"
Evardone said.
Corona is facing eight impeachment charges in the Senate, one of which is the
allegation he undervalued his net worth in his SALn.
Incidentally, Evardone is one of the complainants against Corona.
Yesterday, The Tribune came out with an exclusive story detailing Sereno's
earnings as one of the lawyers who represented the government in the Piatco
case. The Tribune article alleged Sereno collected $580,000.00 or P25 million in
professional fees as one of the Philippine government's lawyer in arbitrating
the cases concerning the Piatco in the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
in Singapore and the ICC in Washington in the case of Fraport AG, on the Ninoy
Aquino International Airport Terminal lll (NAIA-3) controversy.
Documents obtained by the Tribune reveal that Sereno, as the Philippine
government's lawyer in the Singapore Arbitration Court was paid a hefty
US$324,674 (P13.9 million) in legal and professional fees and other costs and
expenses.
Her fees alone, as of December 31, 2010, for ICC case Number
12610/TE/MW/AVH/JEM Piatco v. GRP as stated in the documents, showed a sum of
$312,619.54 (P13.4 million) while "other costs and expenses" under her name came
up to $12,054.83 (P518,358).
These figures are her fees and expenses only for the Piatco Singapore ICC
case, not counting the Fraport case in Washington ICC, for which Sereno
collected another $254,000 (P10.9 million).
Accordingly, Sereno lied before the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) in her
application for the High Court's post, claiming she was a lecturer at the Hague
Academy of International Law.
"That is absolutely false," a Tribune source said. "She was never a lecturer
at the Hague Academy."
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/
