PROSECUTION DIRECT COLLISION BETWEEN JUDICIARY & THE
EXECUTIVE
MANILA, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 (MANILA TIMES) Written by : Ritchie A.
Horario, Correspondent (PHOTO - Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago takes the
podium during Day 24 of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona on
Monday. POOL PHOTO)
THE Senate impeachment court on Monday decided not to subpoena Supreme Court
Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno to testify in the trial of Chief Justice
Renato Corona.
Meanwhile, Malacañang said that Article II of the Articles of Impeachment was
enough to convict the chief magistrate.
During Day 24 of the impeachment trial, Senate President Juan
Ponce Enrile and senator-judge Miram Defensor Santiago warned that inviting
Sereno to help the prosecution panel in building their case would pose problems
for the two co-equal branches of government.
"Kapag ginawa ko' yon, kapag ginawa ng husgado na ito 'yon, baka magkaroon
tayo ng mas malaking problema [If I do that {inviting Sereno}, it might give us
more problems]," Enrile said.
He made that statement after Rep. Neri Colmenares of Bayan Muna party-list, a
House prosecutor, persisted in appealing to the impeachment tribunal to grant
their request to invite Sereno.
Enrile asked Colmenares on what he expected the Senate would do if the SC
associate justice turned down their invitation or snubbed their subpoena, should
they decide to issue one.
The prosecutor replied that he believed that Sereno would honor the
invitation or the subpoena.
But Enrile and Santiago warned the prosecution panel about the request
because this, the two senators said, might cause problems between the judiciary
and the executive.
"Do you recognize that you are asking this nation to go on a direct collision
[between the judiciary and legislative]?" Santiago asked.
Instead of relying merely on compulsory powers of the impeachment court to
subpoena Sereno, Enrile and senator-judge Francis Escudero told the prosecutors
to invite Sereno themselves.
But Colmenares said that they planned to talk to the High Court magistrate,
but they decided not to push through with it because they might be accused of
forcing her to do what they want her to do.
Senator-judge Panfilo Lacson said that he sensed that the prosecution panel
seemed to be passing the buck to the Senate.
"Napagkaisahan niyo na huwag na lang tumuloy para kausapin si Justice Sereno
dahil baka isipin iniimpluwensyahan ninyo siya [You decided not to push with
talking to Sereno because some may think that you might be influencing her],"
Lacson added.
Colmenares said that they did not have the same power that the Senate
wielded, citing the February 14 resolution of the High Court prohibiting its
justices and employees from being summoned.
The prosecution, according to him, has been having a hard time getting
willing and cooperative witnesses to testify in the trial, saying that it must
be because the case was against the Chief Justice.
Senator-judge Antonio Trillanes 4th also withdrew his motion and instead
asked the Senate to just send written interrogatories to Sereno.
Also on Monday, Palace spokesman Edwin Lacierda said that Article II would
lay the basis for Corona's conviction.
"I think Article II has sufficiently laid the basis to warrant a conviction.
Article VII also would show the unilateral action taken by Chief Justice
Corona," Lacierda told reporters during a press briefing.
"Well, it's a call of the prosecution and I think Article II has, like we
said, sufficient basis to warrant a conviction," he said.
According to the spokesman, the prosecution was able to show that monies
declared by Corona in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth do not
jibe with his bank deposits since it was revealed that he had at least P30
million in various bank accounts.
Lacierda said that the testimony of Sereno would boost the House panel's case
since she would testify on her dissenting opinion on a temporary restraining
order issued by the High Court supposedly favoring former President Gloria
Arroyo.
The prosecution panel earlier said that they would wrap up their presentation
of evidence in at least a week's time. With report from
Jaime R. Pilapil
FROM THE DAILY TRIBUNE
Noy's niña bonita SC justice's interrogatory nixed by Senate
court By Benjamin B. Pulta 02/28/2012
[PHOTO - Rep. Neri Colmenares]
The question of whether or not to have junior Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno
(photo at right) --- President Aquino's first appointee and his seeming
favorite justice in the Supreme Court ---testify before the Senate impeachment
court either through the court's invitation or the submission of an
interrogation was rejected yesterday even as Senate president Juan Ponce Enrile,
serving as the impeachment court's presiding officer, said all arising
incidental matters are properly within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
"If you think I committed grave abuse of discretion you can appeal (your case
to the Supreme Court)," Enrile stated yesterday in reference to the judicial
power of the courts under the Constitution after Rep. Neri Colmenares reiterated
his request for a subpoena for Sereno.
"What the Supreme Court says is constitutional law no one else can reverse
it," Enrile said in explaining why no subpoena is forthcoming for the
prosecution to compel Sereno to testify. Enrile explored the possibility of
inviting Sereno to voluntarily appear before the court by the prosectuion.
An indignant Miriam Defensor Santiago challenging Colmenares also said that
the point of the impeachment proceeding was not which court should prevail over
the other. "This is not a pissing contest. This is about the whole nation." she
added.
Santiago also insinuated that the prosecution was "attacking the entire
system of privilege for all the branches of government"
Malacañang expressed its fervent hope that Justice Sereno would
voluntarily testify at the impeachment trial to strengthen Art. 7 of the
impeachment case accusing the chief magistrate of being partial to detained
former President Gloria Arroyo.
Claiming that Sereno's voluntary testimony would be a welcome attraction to
strengthen Article 7 of the impeachment case against Corona, Presidential
Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda said that a first person testimony would definitely
boost their chances of ousting the chief magistrate.
Lacierda likewise expressed hope that the Senate, acting as impeachment
court, would seriously consider "looking at Sereno's testimony as something that
would serve as an instrument in getting to the bottom of what the impeachment
court is all about — the truth.
Aside from courting Sereno through the media, Lacierda also called on the
Supreme Court not to prevent her to appear at the impeachment trial.
Lacierda (photo at left) expressed strong belief that Sereno's
testimony would show Corona's alleged unilateral action on the TRO. That should
be brought to light and by way of testimony. It is something that we would hope
that Justice Sereno will be able to testify and to shed out the truth in the TRO
deliberations in the SC," he said.
When asked for his opinion as a lawyer, if Sereno's appearance and testimony
would have any implication in the independence of the SC, Lacierda categorically
said that it won't.
He also cited a number of cases where the internal deliberations of the SC
have been discussed and fleshed out.
"The disclosures of internal deliberations of the SC have happened regularly
in the opinions of the SC. So this is not surprising to all of us and I think
this should not be a cause of concern," he said.
The House prosecution panel yesterday asked the Senate Impeachment Court to
invite Sereno to testify on the circumstances surrounding the issuance of a TRO
against the Department of Justice which barred former President.
In a four-page memorandum, the prosecutors? headed by Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. of
Iloilo and Neri Colmenares of Bayan Muna – said Sereno's testimony could shed
light into how the Supreme Court arrived at the decision to issue the TRO
against the DOJ. Sereno had issued a dissenting opinion on the matter which the
prosecutors maintained, that if explained, would be material in the impeachment
case against Corona.
"The said dissenting opinion forms part of the testimony of Justice Secretary
Leila de Lima mentioning the specific acts of the Chief Justice and the
impeachment complaint pending before this Honorable Impeachment Court," the
request stated.
The prosecutors maintained that the request for Sereno's attendance is not
covered by the Feb. 14 ruling of the SC which barred all justices and employees
from testifying in the impeachment case.
"The Prosecution Panel is of the view that the said resolution has no
relevance to the discussion considering our humble submission that the Supreme
Court cannot impose on the Impeachment Court directives on the subpoena of
witnesses and/or documents, thereby encroaching in the prerogatives of the sole
body mandated by the Constitution to try and decide impeachment cases," the
prosecutors explained.
According to the prosecutors the Feb. 14 resolution of the Supreme Court,
which prohibits justices and court personnel from testifying in the impeachment
trial of Corona as "massacre of the truth."
Prosecution spokesmen said the SC resolution was nothing but an "obscene
attempt to cover up the truth" behind the high court's issuance last year of a
TRO, allowing the former chief executive to leave the country and evade
prosecution.
"We call it a Valentine's Day massacre of the truth. This latest Supreme
Court ruling was clearly part of the conspiracy to conceal the truth behind the
TRO favoring the former president," Deputy Speaker Lorenzo Tanada lll said,
adding that the resolution has "effectively made truth seeking impossible."
"Majority of Supreme Court justices barricaded the truth the same way they
did with the resolution on not releasing the SALn (Statement of Assets,
Liabilities and Net Worth) some decades back," Tañada said.
Aurora Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara said that the resolution of the SC is not
absolute.
"We feel that judicial privilege and confidentiality should not be an
absolute doctrine in the sense that there should be instances when it should not
be used to cover up potential wrongdoings or used to usurp the power of the
impeachment court to decide certain cases especially when it is the Supreme
Court justices that are being tried," Angara pointed out.
The defense panel expressed misgivings about Sereno's testimony.
Defense counsel Rico Quicho said the defense will most likely question Sereno
if she takes the witness stand and begins to testify on Corona's alleged
manipulation of en banc voting.
Judicial privilege, under the internal rules of the Supreme Court, is a cloak
of confidentiality covering discussions on pending cases, and deliberations
between magistrates on matters before them. Fernan Angeles
and Gerry Baldo
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/
